Preamble

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Wednesday 14 July at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

New Deal

Mr. Chris Pond: How he proposes to improve the promotion of self-employment through the new deal. [88964]

The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): We are promoting the self-employment option through personal advisers. By the end of May, 1,800 young unemployed people had started on new deal business courses, 800 had started test trading and more than 100 were independently running their own businesses. The very best promotion for the new deal self-employment option is the success of young people themselves, such as Mark Venning in Plymouth, who has not only started his own business through the new deal, but is now poised to recruit his first new deal employee.

Mr. Pond: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that my hon. Friends in north Kent and I have carried out an inquiry into the operation of the new deal in our area? Generally, the response from those involved has been positive and enthusiastic. However, the concern is—it is certainly the perception—that the potential for self-employment has not been fully exploited. In building on the success of the new deal, and in developing the new ONE service, will he give the House an assurance that he will consult organisations such as the Prince's Trust, to ensure that young people with a good business idea can use their energies, talents and abilities to move out of unemployment and into self-employment?

Mr. Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friends on their work locally, which builds on the extensive involvement

of hon. Members in the new deal. That has been something of an innovation, and has greatly contributed to the success of the programme. We are working closely with the Prince's Trust Business, and I was pleased recently to announce, with the support of all parties in the House, an extra £50 million of matched funding, which should enable an additional 30,000 young people to start their own businesses over the next five years. A significant proportion of those 30,000 will be new deal young unemployed people.

Mr. Roy Beggs: The Minister's statement is encouraging for those who have taken advantage of new deal opportunities. Does he agree with me and many colleagues present that there are individuals throughout our constituencies who did not achieve much academically at school, but who after leaving school have, with initiative and support, become successful in self-employment? Does he further agree that organisations such as the local economic development enterprise groups in Northern Ireland, which encourage new business start-ups, could provide support; and that, through the new deal, placements could be found for business start-up in such organisations?

Mr. Smith: Yes, I do agree. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the programme, which, if it can help to tackle the historically high unemployment in his constituency and in neighbouring areas, will make a big contribution to overcoming the sectarian divisions that must be overcome if we are to make a success of the peace process, which we all want. I commend the efforts of start-up bodies, the Employment Service in Northern Ireland and local businesses, which are doing their bit in a great partnership effort to give new hope to young people who have had a rough start in life.

Mr. John Healey: My right hon. Friend has recently announced continuous improvement targets for next year of 6 per cent. to boost the number of young people going into unsubsidised and subsidised jobs. They are good, fair targets. Will he confirm whether similar improvement targets have been set for the self-employment option, given its importance within the new deal programme? If not, will he consider doing so?

Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. It is actually a 6 percentage point improvement, which could mean an increase of as much as a third in some of the poorly performing units of delivery, and an increase of about 8 per cent. even in the best performing units. People who are securing self-employment through the new deal self-employment option are included in those targets.
I shall give further thought to the question of whether we need specific targets for self-employment. I would inject a note of caution, however, because self-employment is not a realistic aspiration for everyone, and it is important that young people who start up their own business do so with their eyes open and with the right degree of support.

Mr. John Bercow: We welcome any chance for new deal recruits to end up working for themselves, especially as most of them have had little chance to end up working for anyone else. On the right hon. Gentleman's own admission, more than


16,000 recruits have gone back on benefits, almost 40,000 have disappeared to destinations unknown, and three quarters have failed to find employment. The Business Services Association, which started by supporting the scheme, says that the new deal has not proved effective at matching candidates to job vacancies. What guarantee can the right hon. Gentleman give the House that his latest scheme will not be as big a failure as his previous botched efforts?

Mr. Smith: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment to the Front-Bench team. It is the first opportunity I have had so to do—[Interruption.]—although my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) says that the hon. Gentleman is obviously still in the gateway stage.
As the new deal has already helped 100,000 young people off benefit and into jobs and cut long-term youth unemployment since its introduction by two thirds, and as this country now has the lowest youth unemployment for 25 years, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would support the efforts of the Employment Service, our partners, and employers throughout the country to make the new deal a success—offering hope and opportunity for young people—rather than try to undermine it.

Schools Collaboration

Mr. Barry Sheerman: What steps he is taking to improve the level of communication and co-operation between schools in the same locality. [88965]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): We regard better communication and co-operation between schools and particularly the dissemination of good practice as a vital part of our drive to raise standards in schools. Among the Government's initiatives are the beacon schools initiative, specialist school schemes, "Excellence in Cities", education action zones and a range of other ideas to that end.

Mr. Sheerman: I welcome the Administration's announcements over the past two years, but as my hon. Friend will be aware, we have a legacy of poor co-operation between schools which we inherited from the former Administration. Will he look at innovative supply chain techniques in business and apply them to the relationships from the earliest school—pre-school—to universities? Will he come to my constituency of Huddersfield, where, led by the further education sector, we have achieved amazing results in improving quality, from pre-school to the local university?

Mr. Clarke: I accept what my hon. Friend says about the achievements in Huddersfield. May I draw attention to the early-years development schemes, our development of school organisation committees, and the post-16 White Paper that was published last week, all of which are designed to generate co-operation between all aspects of education and to achieve what he mentions?

Miss Anne McIntosh: I entirely endorse the philosophy that local schools should co-operate. On schools in the Vale of York area, which is now within the city of York, there was excellent

co-operation at the level of North Yorkshire county council, which—I say it for the House's benefit—is Conservative controlled. I regret that, since it has had its own Labour-controlled local education authority, the city of York has not even developed a long-term education strategy to deal with the real problem of surplus places in the town. What will the Government do to correct that matter?

Mr. Clarke: I have met delegates from the city of York and the local Members of Parliament to discuss those issues. The educational development plans focus precisely on the means of developing co-operation to address those issues; but it is a bit rich of Conservatives, who positively promoted division between schools when in government, to make criticisms on that front. We are trying to build co-operation.

Pupil Mobility

Mr. Bob Blizzard: What assessment he has made of the effects of pupil mobility on standards in schools. [88966]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): We are supporting a research project into pupil mobility and its effect on schools, conducted by the migration research unit at University College, London. We expect preliminary results from the project to be available this month. We hope that the outcomes will provide more information on the issue of pupil mobility and the impact on standards in schools. We will keep the House informed of progress.

Mr. Blizzard: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. May I give him an example from a primary school in my constituency which highlights the problem? I take the most recent year group to leave that school. During its four-year passage through the school, there were 123 pupils, yet of that number, only 40 were on the roll for the duration of those four years—a 67 per cent. mobility rate. A high proportion of those transient pupils suffer serious under-achievement, given the number who are on records of support, and it is much harder for the school to teach the 40 regulars, if I may call them that.
Will my hon. Friend consider making resources available from the standards fund, once he has evaluated the research, to help schools to develop and to implement strategies to deal with the problem?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The answer to his question is yes, we shall consider that, once we have evaluated the research. The fact is that mobility is very high in many surprising places: in seaside resorts, such as those in his own constituency; in inner-city areas, where there has been surprisingly high mobility; in places near armed forces, such as schools in Catterick; and in travellers' areas, migration areas, and rural inland areas. We have to understand pupil mobility far better, and then decide how to target resources so that they make a difference.

Excluded Pupils

Mr. Jonathan Shaw: What support has been made available to schools to help them reduce the number of pupils who are excluded. [88967]

The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): In 1999–2000, £57.4 million has been made available through the standards fund to help local education authorities and schools reduce levels of truancy and exclusion and move towards a full timetable for those out of school. Overall, £500 million will be made available over three years. Other measures to tackle truancy and exclusion include requiring authorities to set targets to reduce truancy and exclusion levels by one third by 2002, and, earlier this week, issuing new integrated guidance, "Social Inclusion; Pupil Support".

Mr. Shaw: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware of the organisation Place to Be, which provides specialist counselling and therapy-based services in schools in areas such as Medway to assist children and their families when they are in periods of difficulty? That counselling is an enormous help to those families, and perhaps prevents them from going on to use other health services and waiting a long time. Additionally, its proactive approach means that many pupils who might face exclusion, either permanently or temporarily, may avoid doing so. Will she find out more about Place to Be, and try to ensure that thousands of other children benefit from that vital service?

Ms Morris: I share with my hon. Friend the determination to take preventive action, so that we may stop youngsters being excluded. As he well knows, the purpose of the Place to Be project is to prevent long-term mental health difficulties in primary-aged children who may be at risk of such difficulties. I was delighted that some of the almost £500,000 that has been provided to Medway, where my hon. Friend's constituency is to be found, is being used to support Place to Be. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that Place to Be is also doing some work in one of the education action zones. We shall evaluate the project, as that is one of the grant conditions. However, after careful evaluation of the project, if it is proved to be effective, we shall of course be delighted to help to support it operating elsewhere.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Yesterday, the Education and Employment Committee published the Government's response to our report on highly able children, some of whom may also be at risk of exclusion if the maintained sector cannot meet their very particular needs. A nine-year-old girl in my constituency has not found in the maintained sector the education that she needs, and, this autumn, will be going to a local independent school. Will the Minister explain to the House why that girl and her family have to rely solely on charitable support to achieve the education that she needs, and why the Government will deny power to the local education authority to fund that provision?

Ms Morris: The Government welcome the Select Committee report on the education of highly able children. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have launched a policy—the most wide-ranging such

policy ever developed in the lifetime of the English education service—to support highly able children throughout the school system. His constituents will always have the choice of whether to access the independent sector to educate their children.
The challenge, which the Government are meeting, is to ensure that the maintained sector values and provides a high standard of education to every single child, so that they are able to fulfil their potential. Our action—in providing extra resources and support, setting clear targets, modernising the comprehensive system, and ensuring diversity in primary and secondary education—is exactly the way to reach that goal, so that, in future, parents will not be faced with the very difficult dilemmas to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend will be aware of the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the exclusion—from the Nelson Thomlinson school, in Cumbria—of a child from my constituency. In the light of that case—which I think has national significance—why cannot we now have a complete review of the whole policy? There was an injustice in that case, and we must find some way of ensuring that similar injustices do not occur in future.

Ms Morris: I recall the case to which my hon. Friend refers. We have had lengthy correspondence on it and I very much hope that it has been resolved. We have a good system for dealing with exclusions and disputes between parents and schools. It is inevitable that the relationships between parents and schools will occasionally break down. Sometimes the victims are the children, whose education is disrupted. I hope that in the case to which my hon. Friend referred those concerned took every possible course of action to bring about a speedy resolution—but I entirely take his point. If the system needs changing to avoid children being out of school for a long period, we shall be happy to learn from that example and review the situation when we review our policy.

Mrs. Theresa May: We all want to ensure that all children are valued and are given access to education so that they can take advantage of the opportunities that it offers them. Does the Minister accept that many teachers are very concerned about the impact that the Government's insistence on targets for reducing exclusion could have in the classroom? Many feel that to reach the targets pupils will be kept in the classroom against the better judgment of the school and against their own interests and those of others in the school—or will the Government fiddle the figures to reach their target, as we have already seen may be happening on the literacy and numeracy targets?
In "Excellence in Cities", the Government have proposed that pupil referral units be set up in schools so that pupils can be excluded within the school rather than from the school. Will the Minister confirm that future figures on exclusions will include the number of pupils excluded from the classroom? That would give a true picture of exclusions and not allow the Government to attempt to reach their target merely by fiddling the figures.

Ms Morris: I am left wondering whether the hon. Lady knows what exclusion means. Under the Conservative


Government it meant excluding a child from full-time education and often providing them with as little as two hours' education a week. Part of the money that we have made available this year will be used to provide full-time education for the first time for those excluded from school. I hope that all hon. Members share our wish for children not to be excluded from school.
I entirely accept that there are occasions when a child needs to be removed from the classroom because of the effect that their behaviour and attitude is having on other children. Our wish is to keep them in the school and in mainstream education. The figures show that a child sent out of school to a pupil referral unit is very rarely reintegrated into the mainstream system. I had hoped that the hon. Lady would welcome the fact that we are making resources available, under "Excellence in Cities" and other initiatives, to support schools and teachers in their wish to find a speedy way of dealing with children who are having a disruptive effect on the education of others, while keeping them in school and in full-time education, working with them and reintegrating them as quickly as possible.

Special Measures

Mr. Jeff Ennis: How many (a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools have been taken out of the special measures category since the beginning of the current academic year. [88968]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I am pleased to be able to announce that last term, for the first time, the number of schools going into special measures was exceeded by the number coming out. There were 135 entering special measures and 149 coining out, of which 109 were primary schools, 24 were secondary and 16 were special schools. By the end of this term a further 40 schools will have come out of special measures.

Mr. Ennis: I thank my right hon. Friend for his response and I congratulate the Government on their progress towards achieving their objective of making every school in this country a good school. Is my right hon. Friend aware that Milefield primary school in Grimethorpe in my constituency has recently been taken out of the special measures category? Having visited Grimethorpe, he will be aware of the hardships that it has suffered in recent years, particularly in 1993 when the local pit was deliberately closed as an act of political spite, not economic necessity, by the previous Government. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating everyone connected with Milefield school, including the headmistress, Judith Hurst, the governors, the staff, the parents and particularly the children, on their recent achievement?

Mr. Blunkett: We all appear to be able to rejoice at Milefield school coming out of special measures in February. I congratulate all who have made that possible, including the head, the teachers and the parents. When I visited Grimethorpe last Friday, I was deeply impressed by the spirit of self-help and regeneration in the community, and by the older and younger people who were making that possible. It is with that spirit of self-help that the devastation caused by the previous Government will be set aside.

Early Learning

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: What assessment he has made of the level of support from the voluntary sector for the early learning goals. [88969]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority recently published its report which analyses responses to the review of desirable learning outcomes. This shows that over 95 per cent. of respondents from across the range of sectors support the aims of the proposed early learning goals. This includes support from the voluntary sector, at 95 per cent.

Mr. Hoyle: Does my hon. Friend agree with the Ofsted report, which concluded that children do not suffer emotionally by being encouraged to achieve early learning goals, such as counting to 10 and learning the alphabet? I am sure that most parents would agree with that.

Ms Hodge: We know from the response to our consultation that most parents do agree with that. It is outrageous to suggest that children who are almost six should not be able to feel comfortable with early numbers and early literacy achievements. We will pursue those early learning goals as a way of raising standards throughout the education system.

Mr. Don Foster: The Minister's reply notwithstanding, can she explain to the House why, despite the large positive response to which she referred, the Early Childhood Education Forum—which represents nearly every organisation involved in early-years education across the country—has described the proposals as a mess and a muddle? The forum said that the goals were far too prescriptive and that there would be an early introduction of formal education which, as evidence from other countries in Europe suggests, is the wrong approach. As an example, can the Minister explain why she believes it right to have it as a goal that children by the age of six should learn to sit still, rather than that they should be able to jump on to and off a log?

Ms Hodge: I had better engage the hon. Gentleman about falling off logs—[Interruption]—and sooner rather than later. He was with me when the Select Committee visited Switzerland, one of the countries which engages in a more structured and rigorous approach to early-years education. It is not an issue of choosing between play and learning; nor is it an issue of over-formalising education. We are attempting to ensure—I would want the hon. Gentleman's support—that children at this early stage of their development get those skills that we know are necessary for effective learning. To ensure that that happens, we need to have the structure and rigour of a foundation stage and early learning goals.

Mr. Paul Marsden: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Shrewsbury sixth form college on the development of the new learning centre at the heart of the town, which will be open to all,


young and old, and which will be completed in September? What help is available from the Government for encouraging more community learning schemes?

Ms Hodge: A community learning fund will be available to colleges such as the one my hon. Friend described, from which they can get support for the sort of schemes that he would wish to make progress.

Mrs. Theresa May: The Minister cannot simply cast aside the growing concerns about the increasing formalisation of education for children at a very young age and the increasing pressure being put on them by having to go to primary school at an earlier age and by the early learning outcomes. Is she aware of the article by Dr. Cousins, an adviser to the United Nations on early-years education, who said:
The growing use of 'end-product activities' and 'learning outcomes' risked switching many children off learning by the age of five"?
There is a great risk that learning through play is being cast aside, as evidenced by the closure of 1,500 pre-schools in the past two years and the expected closure of 1,700 this year. Will the Minister confirm that when she claims that hundreds of pre-schools have opened in the past year, that includes instances in which the leader of a pre-school has changed address or an existing pre-school has been taken over by a new leader? Is not this just another case of fiddling the figures?

Ms Hodge: That really takes the biscuit. The increase in the number of children going into reception classes was entirely due to the nursery voucher scheme introduced by the previous Government. I wonder whether the hon. Lady really thinks it wrong for her own children, by the time they are five, almost six, to be able to count to 10, to know the alphabet, to recognise the M on a McDonald's sign and to be able to deal with simple words. If she wants that for her own children, is it not good enough for other children? Is it not about time that Conservative Members started to show some concern for the three quarters of all four-year-olds currently experiencing their nursery education in the maintained sector?

Specialist Schools

Mr. Ben Chapman: What support has been given to specialist schools to enable them to increase their links with the community. [88971]

The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): The criteria for specialist school applicants provide clear guidance on their community role. From September, we will make available additional funding of up to £20,000 a year to support the development of links with other primary and secondary schools and the wider community.

Mr. Chapman: I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the expansion of the specialist schools programme, which includes Plessington high school in my constituency. Is not that evidence of the Government delivering on diversity, just as they are delivering on early years and on class sizes? What evidence is there of successful achievement by pupils in the specialist schools?

Ms Morris: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and congratulate Plessington on being designated a

specialist school. It is indeed an example of the Government modernising the comprehensive principle. There were 200 specialist schools when we took office and we have found additional resources so that there will be 800—one in four secondary schools—by 2002. We have ensured that they share their resources and expertise with other secondary and primary schools in the area so that we can raise standards for all children, not only a few. I know that all hon. Members will welcome that.

Mr. Michael Jack: The former Lytham St. Anne's high school in my constituency has taken on the specialist role of a technology college, but unfortunately it faces problems with its second round funding application. It was led to believe that £100 per capita would be available in the second phase, but it is now affected by a new policy that appears to impose a cap. Will the Minister assure me that an official from her Department will make early contact with the headmaster, Mr. Michael Payne, to review the situation and get a first-hand briefing on the problem?

Ms Morris: There are no new criteria. The financial arrangements for the second round were made clear some time ago. The specialist schools receive considerable extra money. There is matched funding of £100,000 for capital work and up to an additional £100,000 to provide for revenue work both for the schools' own students and for others. I have every confidence that the school in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency will use the money to good effect to raise standards for its students and those in the neighbouring schools.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my hon. Friend investigate the unwillingness of the Conservative-controlled Cambridgeshire local education authority to match the Government's standards fund to provide literacy classes for parents in my constituency? Those parents will miss out on a valuable source of funding that the Government want to use to raise standards.

Ms Morris: I share my hon. Friend's concern about that. In the drive to raise literacy standards for children, it is just as important to work with their parents. Much of the money made available by the Government for the literacy strategy should be taken up locally, and I very much regret the action of the Cambridgeshire authority. If it had decided to passport the money that the Government have made available for schools, it would not have had to make the decision that it has made.

Mr. James Clappison: Given that specialist schools involve a measure of selection, will the Minister take this opportunity to say whether the Government still believe the assurance given by the Secretary of State to the constituents of the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) in the by-election there in 1997? That assurance was given in a Labour publication and was headed "Grammars are safe with Labour". The Secretary of State said:
There's no threat to the continuance of the grammar schools or to their ethos or their quality. I'm very keen to level up.
Does that assurance stand?

Ms Morris: I look forward to the day when the hon. Gentleman asks a question that does not refer to the


161 grammar schools, but is about the 24,000 other schools that make up the rest of the English state system. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have made the Government's policy quite clear, both before and since the election. They have said that the decision about whether to change the admissions arrangements for grammar schools, in the Wirral and elsewhere, will lie in the hands of parents. The House knows that the last time that many grammar schools closed was under Baroness Thatcher. She did not allow parents to make that decision, but took it herself, in conjunction with local authorities. I should have thought that, on such important decisions, the House would welcome the fact that we are asking those whose lives will most be affected.

Literacy Hour

Mr. Colin Burgon: What representations he has received from schools regarding the literacy hour. [88973]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): The latest survey shows that 90 per cent. of head teachers welcome the literacy hour and find it extremely valuable and useful in transforming the life chances of children. This week, Ofsted said that the project was an important catalyst in the majority of schools in tackling deep-seated problems with literacy. We are very pleased that the literacy hour is making such a difference. We shall go forward to ensure that, despite the legacy that we inherited, our children will be able to read, write and add up at the age of 11.

Mr. Burgon: I thank my right hon. Friend for that comprehensive answer. He will be interested to know that I recently visited St. Edward's primary school in Boston Spa in my constituency, which achieves high standards. Its head teacher, Mark Brennan, was especially keen to stress how the literacy hour will serve to drive up standards further. Several other head teachers in my constituency have said the same, so it is clear that the literacy hour is an outstanding success. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to praise the teachers and the non-teaching assistants who have worked so hard to deliver this good news story for us all?

Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I shall take this opportunity to do just that, with cross-party support. We thank Lord Putnam, Lloyds TSB and all the others who have worked so hard on the national awards. We also greatly appreciate the fact that, at 7 pm on BBC1 this Sunday, the BBC will publicise the excellence of teachers and the good work that is being done. We can all celebrate what is happening in our classrooms. For the excellent work of our teachers and non-teaching staff we say, "Thank you."

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: There are many thousands of good teachers in our schools, and improvements in the attainment of literacy standards are welcome. However, how can teachers take seriously the Secretary of State's protestations about the importance that he attaches to their professional status when his Department is issuing guidance that tells them how to use every 10 minutes of the literacy hour? Should he not

concentrate on setting standards and targets rather than trying to tell teachers how to teach? If he really believes in the professional status of teachers, should he not be leaving teaching to those best qualified to do it?

Mr. Blunkett: One section of the right hon. Gentleman's party has just denounced targets, and he welcomes targets but not the means by which to reach them. We need a strategy that provides a framework and the resources to back it up, and we have provided £55 million. We need teacher training to make the strategy achievable, and added support for pupils, which youngsters themselves have welcomed, for activities which, in the past, only the rich could afford in the Easter holidays or at weekend. We also need to ensure that teachers have the professional judgment to make appropriate adjustments on the principle of inverse proportion to success. Where intervention is not needed, we will stay out, but where it is needed, we will intervene.

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Does the Secretary of State recognise the sad irony of our having to address basic literacy as we approach the 21st century when the problem had been identified by Parliament at the end of the 19th century? Children enjoy the literacy hour in my constituency, but does the Secretary of State recognise that both for children with high ability whose reading standards are high and for those who may struggle with reading, some flexibility may be needed in the hour?

Mr. Blunkett: As part of our development for gifted children and our extension of what is available in the school, rather than outside the neighbourhood, we shall issue specific guidance. This week's Ofsted report said that struggling children, and the average, had benefited greatly from the structure that we have provided. The additional boost to classes had transformed their life chances, and not simply those of the children who were coasting or doing well. Our strategy is helping those who, in the past, would simply have been abandoned to entering adulthood without being able to read and write properly and who would then have formed the cohort so graphically identified by the Moser report a few months ago.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Is it not perfectly obvious that one way in which to assess the efficiency and effect of the literacy hour, and to drive up standards, would be to publish the results of tests held at age seven? Does the Secretary of State recall his feeble answer in yesterday's education debate when I put it to him that he had been hurt by criticism that too much bureaucracy was being placed on schools? Can he explain how it would add to the bureaucracy affecting schools if local education authorities and his Department ensured that those results were published?

Mr. Blunkett: I answered the hon. Gentleman's question last night. It is a pity that he either did not hear me, or cannot remember it.

Dr. Lewis: I have just read it in Hansard.

Mr. Blunkett: I am pleased that the literacy hour has enabled the hon. Gentleman to look up the answer this morning. My answer remains the same. He cannot in one


breath ask us to relieve pressure, reduce bureaucracy and spend less on centralised collection, collation and publication of data, while in the next breath demand the opposite.

Miss Melanie Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we can build on the excellent progress that schools are making on literacy and numeracy by using electronic conferencing and the information communication technology that the Government are putting into schools for professional development of teachers?

Mr. Blunkett: The database that is being compiled and the way in which the standards site is now working are enabling people to spread best practice, and to share what they have found to work well—rather than merely what is offered by the framework. That also provides them with the wherewithal to support integrated learning systems, which are most important for underachievers. I am extremely pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), is taking forward the development of the national grid for learning; a concept that did not even exist as a twinkle in the eye of the Conservatives—never mind the £1 billion that we are spending on it.

Specialist Schools

Dr. Howard Stoate: How many schools have been designated specialist schools since May 1997. [88974]

The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): Since May 1997, 196 schools have been designated, bringing the total to more than 400. That is a considerable achievement and puts us on course to reach our target of 800 by 2003.

Dr. Stoate: I thank my hon. Friend for that most satisfactory reply. In my Dartford constituency, there are three highly popular and successful specialist colleges: Dartford grammar school—a language college; Dartford West school for girls—a technology college; and the Leigh city technology college. Does my hon. Friend agree that a sports college in Dartford would complete the learning community, and would add to genuine choice and diversity for parents in my constituency?

Ms Morris: I congratulate my hon. Friend on taking every opportunity to push the cause of his constituency. There are nine specialist schools in his county. A sports college would complete the set; our vision is that there should be several schools of each specialism in every local authority area. I look forward to receiving applications for specialist sports status, but I know that my hon. Friend would not want me to prejudge such applications.

New Deal (Disabled People)

Ms Helen Southworth: If he will make a statement on the progress of the new deal for disabled people. [88975]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): The new deal for disabled people, currently being piloted, is making good progress. Although the journey towards work will take many months for many in that client group, I am pleased to report that, by the end of May, a total of 472 people had already been placed in jobs.

Ms Southworth: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that this is the ideal time for employers in large, medium and small companies to review their recruitment, and to take advantage of the benefits to their companies of employing people with disabilities? I am holding discussions with employers in my constituency. What is my hon. Friend doing to encourage employers, nationally, to seize that opportunity?

Ms Hodge: We are working with many employers so that they can recruit from the widest possible pool of talent, including people with disabilities. For example, in Manchester, where we are running a disabled person pilot, Centrica has employed 50 people with disabilities, and carers. B and Q is another large employer, which has put disability in the mainstream, in respect both of employment and the supply of goods and services. In the Thurso scheme, we are working with employers; 30 people are now in work, who were—between them—unemployed for a total of 194 years. One third of those people had been unemployed for more than nine years and some of them had been unemployed for more than 20 years. That example demonstrates the importance of the scheme for getting disabled people into work.

Mr. Paul Keetch: I add the congratulations of Liberal Democrat Members to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on his position on the Opposition Front Bench. I am not sure whether he is in the gateway period, but, given the rather high staff turnover in the Conservative education team, perhaps his job is not too long term.
What is the benchmark for the success of the new deal for disabled people? Given that, before the introduction of the new deal, 21 per cent. of those disallowed incapacity benefit had found full-time jobs within six months, does the Minster accept that the new deal will have to do better than that if it is to be judged a success?

Ms Hodge: We are being extremely careful in rolling out the new deal for disabled people to ensure that we find out what works before there is a national roll-out. It is a complex area of policy development, given the broad spectrum of disabilities with which we are coping and the real barriers to employment faced by many disabled people. We shall review that benchmark at an appropriate time, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it would be wrong to set inappropriate targets without learning what works.

Miss Anne Begg: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the concerns of a number of disabled people: that they will be called in for interview; that they may be unable to gain access to the building; that the adviser will be insensitive to their needs; and that


they may be placed in a job that they cannot do. What measures is she taking to ensure that such concerns are properly addressed?

Ms Hodge: The new deal for disabled people is a voluntary programme. So far, we have managed to engage more than 3,000 people in the programme following their first interviews, and nearly 2,000 are implementing a focused employment action plan.
We are taking a number of steps to ensure that disabled people see this as an opportunity. For example, the implementation of part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will of itself ensure proper access to services for disabled people. The Disability Rights Commission—the legislation to establish it completed its passage through the Commons last week—will also provide a vehicle to support the rights of individuals.
The opportunity to work is a crucial civil right for disabled people. I say that on the basis of my meetings with disabled people. That opportunity restores their self-esteem, their sense of value and their self-confidence. It is vital, and it is something that we intend to pursue.

Mr. Tim Boswell: It is common ground in the House that the employment of persons with disabilities requires a good deal of care, sensitivity and, indeed, expense. In the light of what the Minister has said, will she confirm that all personal advisers will have expertise, or access to it, in regard to the particular disabilities—or complex of disabilities—of people seeking employment? Does she share the view of the disability charities that the balance between expenditure on the new deal for the disabled and the new deal for young people may require some re-examination?
Finally—in the light of what she said about pilot schemes—will the Minister confirm that the new deal for the disabled is on target for the plan to roll out nationally on 1 April next year?

Ms Hodge: First, let me welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench. I think that this is the first occasion on which I have had the pleasure of engaging him in debate on disability rights, but I welcome him back to the Front Bench—although nowadays it is the Opposition Front Bench.
Personal advisers receive training in respect of all the new deals, and the disability organisations are involved in the training that we provide for personal advisers in all the employment programmes in which we are engaged. As for the amount of money that has been set aside, the new deal for disabled people is only one part of our employment programme to help disabled people to obtain work. Last year, the Employment Service helped nearly 100,000 disabled people to gain employment.
Are we on target for rolling this out nationally? Let me repeat what I said earlier: my view is that we must get this right before we roll it out nationally. I will not be stuck with a date if we have not established what works in terms of securing opportunities for disabled people to obtain work.

Mrs. Theresa May: indicated dissent

Ms Hodge: Let me tell the hon. Lady that I consider this to be one of the most exciting, innovative initiatives that we have launched. It gives disabled people opportunities, and it is not a subject for cheap gibes.

Jobseekers

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: What steps his Department is taking to ensure that people receiving jobseeker's allowance meet their responsibilities of looking for work and improving their employability. [88977]

The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): Everyone receiving the jobseeker's allowance signs an agreement on the steps that they will take to find a job. That is monitored fortnightly by the Employment Service. If people do not meet their responsibilities to be available for work and look for jobs, they can lose their benefits, but the overwhelming majority want jobs—and, under the present Government, more and more are obtaining jobs.

Dr. Ladyman: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer, and commend his efforts to encourage people to find work. May I put it to him, however, that one of the barriers confronting unemployed people who are trying to improve their employability is the fact that so many of the training funds that are available are still focused on people who are already in work, or on employers and their new recruits, rather than on those who are out of work? That strategy is clearly inappropriate in areas of high unemployment such as my constituency. What does my right hon. Friend intend to do about this serious problem?

Mr. Smith: As we develop the new deal and implement the continuous improvement strategy, we shall involve employers to a greater extent in pre-employment training programmes. Training that is detached from workplace experience is far less effective than training in conjunction with a job or an opportunity for work experience. The evidence from the new deal shows that, as does all the evidence and evaluation of training for work. Employers such as Stagecoach who operate pre-employment training through the new deal are both finding a ready source of good recruits and helping many people who had given up on the prospect of getting a job back into the workplace.

Utilities (Job Creation)

Mr. Tim Loughton: What estimate he has made of the number of new jobs created by utility companies since 1 May 1997. [88978]

The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): The number of employee jobs in the electricity, gas, water supply and telecommunications industries in Great Britain increased by 2,000 to 342,000 between March 1997 and March 1999.

Mr. Loughton: I am grateful to the Minister for those figures, but I wonder what work his Department has done to monitor which is more successful in creating real jobs more cost effectively: the utility companies or the new deal. May I refer him to an example from my own constituency? A local electricity company has so far created 500 new jobs in building a new gas-fired power station, despite the Government's moratorium on gas-fired power stations. Half of those 500 new jobs are guaranteed to employ local people, yet, according to the


last count, only 67 new jobs have been created under the new deal in the whole of West Sussex. Which is the more effective creator of new jobs?

Mr. Smith: Of course businesses generate jobs. The task of the new deal is to equip people with the skills to fill those vacancies. Of the net increase of 2,000 jobs in the utilities industries that I just mentioned, 230 are new-deal subsidised, and there will be many more unsubsidised jobs in the total. As for the record of the new deal in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, he might like to pay tribute to the efforts of local people, who have secured a 65 per cent. reduction in long-term youth unemployment in his area. That is testimony to the success of the new deal and the way in which it works in partnership with utilities and other businesses.

Class Sizes (Leicestershire)

Mr. Andrew Robathan: If he will make a statement on the average class size for children aged seven to 11 years in Leicestershire. [88979]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): In Leicestershire, the average primary class has fallen from 26.9 to 26.7 between January 1998 and January 1999. The key stage 1 average has fallen to 25.3 compared to 25.8 last year, and key stage 2 classes average 28.0 compared to 27.8 last year. The number of pupils in primary classes of more than 30 has also fallen, from 14,984 to 14,551.

Mr. Robathan: It is therefore obvious that class sizes are going up for those aged between seven and 11. It is said:
the rhetoric is of much greater funding but all the announcements of extra government money for education are meaningless to us in Leicestershire … we do not have enough money to pay for the teachers we need or to improve the learning environment.
Those are not my words, but those of the head teacher of a school that takes children at 11—Winstanley high school in my constituency. The school needs 1.2 extra teachers for that age group, but it has less money than it had before:
It is not convincing for this government…to blame the Local Authority…The SSA is fundamentally inequitable.
From the tone of her letter, I suspect that that teacher is not a Conservative supporter. She asks:

Why should a child at school in Leicestershire have so much less money spent on her or his education than a child living elsewhere"—
such as, for instance, the Labour-controlled city of Leicester next door?

Mr. Clarke: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman invites me to address the question of Leicestershire. The county's LEA received almost £1.5 million this year to fund 57 extra teachers and build six extra classrooms to enable it to reduce infant class sizes. The funding that we are providing will enable the LEA to reduce the number of infant pupils in large classes from 3,146 in September 1998 to 2,630 in September 1999. The LEA has said that it will implement the policy in full by September 2000.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that, when we compare Leicestershire with other parts of the country, we find that the average class size in that county is less than the average for England as a whole, and that Leicestershire has more children in smaller classes than the England average. That is a good record of which the Government can rightly be proud, and I wish that, rather than nit-picking from the edge, he would join us in celebrating that.

Mr. Andrew Reed: I welcome the figures that the Minister has announced today. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who, before the election, was opposed to reducing class sizes, has been heard in the House on many occasions denigrating the work that has been done. However, will the Minister take seriously the hon. Gentleman's point about the standard spending assessment and Leicestershire's funding? We have a double problem in that not only is the SSA less than those in other parts of the country—I am sure that the difference will be made up in the coming years—but there is a shortfall of £1.5 million that the LEA has received from the Department but not passed to local schools. Will the Minister ensure that, in future, moneys provided by the Department to the LEA go to schools to ensure that targets are met?

Mr. Clarke: I take very seriously representations on SSAs because they concern many issues that have been raised in Leicestershire and other parts of the country. I take even more seriously the issue that my hon. Friend mentioned about passporting the money. That is why, about 10 days ago, we published data setting out exactly what every local authority is doing, and that will enable a proper assessment to be made.

Post Office

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Post Office White Paper, which the Government published today.
The White Paper sets an agenda for the Post Office to offer a world-class service for the 21st century. Today's announcement is good news for the Post Office and all those whose livelihoods depend on it, because it can now build for the future with real confidence. It is good news for the Post Office's millions of customers, who will benefit from improved services from a new, modernised Post Office and from greater competition for postal services.
The White Paper brings an end to the uncertainty that has dogged the Post Office over the last decade: uncertainty over its role and place in society; uncertainty over its long-term viability and ownership; uncertainty over the universal service obligation; and uncertainty over the Post Office network. Today, we provide certainty and a new sense of direction and purpose based on modernisation and reform.
Throughout the world, postal markets are changing at an increasingly rapid rate. Globalisation of postal services, the growth of faxes and e-mail, more demanding customers and greater liberalisation of markets are driving change as never before. It is a question not of whether markets will become more competitive, but of how far and how fast that will happen.
The Post Office already faces fierce competition, not only from private sector couriers but from other post offices throughout Europe and from the internet. I know that the Post Office management views change and greater competition as an opportunity, not a threat. It is an opportunity to enter new markets and to overhaul the Post Office's business processes. It is an opportunity for new ventures and new alliances. It is an opportunity to prove that the Post Office can compete against the best in the world, and do so successfully.
To compete effectively and fulfil its potential, however, the Post Office needs greater flexibility. If it is not given greater freedom to expand into wider and international markets, it will find itself confined to a diminishing sector of the postal market, saddled with falling value and shrinking profits.
That is why, in this White Paper, the Government are mapping out the most radical set of reforms since the modern Post Office was created in 1969—reforms that will ensure that the Post Office can provide the services that we need in the 21st century.
The White Paper proposes that the Post Office be subject to effective market disciplines coupled with regulation, and be allowed new commercial freedoms. Operating at arm's length from Government, it will have the freedom to grow and the means to succeed.
Existing mail services will be maintained and, indeed, strengthened as, for the first time, the universal service obligation, including the requirement to deliver to all addresses, will be laid down in law. That will guarantee a uniform tariff for those services. The cost of a stamp will be the same, regardless of the distance of delivery. I am pleased to confirm that the free service for visually impaired people will continue.
Stronger competition and better regulation will work together to keep prices down, and improve service quality and consumer choice. As part of the balanced package that we are bringing forward, greater commercial freedom must be matched with some liberalisation. The White Paper, therefore, proposes a reduction in the monopoly from the present £1 limit to 50p or 150 g with effect from 1 April 2000.
A new independent postal services regulator will promote consumer interests, regulate prices and ensure that the Post Office provides a high level of service to all households and businesses. Consumers' views will be championed by a greatly strengthened Post Office Users National Council, which will have the power to refer poor performance by the Post Office to the regulator and will be able to recommend the levels of fine to be imposed for bad service.
The Post Office Counters network, which plays such a valuable role in local communities, particularly for the less mobile, will be strengthened by our decision to put the Horizon project back on track.
We shall equip all 19,000 post offices with a modern, on-line computer system. It will enable the Post Office to modernise and improve the service that it gives to existing clients and customers, and to win the new business on which the future success of the post office network will depend.
For the first time, the Government will lay down minimum criteria to ensure that everyone in the United Kingdom has reasonable access to post office counter services, particularly in rural parts of the country and areas of social deprivation. The new regulator and the users council will monitor the network against those criteria.
We have agreed arrangements with the Post Office for maintaining a network of Crown offices, which will handle at least 15 per cent. of total counters business. Where appropriate, new Crown offices may be opened.
Although the Government will set out clear objectives for the Post Office, they will not be involved in day-to-day business operations. The Post Office Board will be responsible for running the Post Office, based on a rolling five-year strategic plan, which will be agreed with the Government. Clear duties, real powers and necessary resources to promote consumer interests will be given to the independent regulator and the users council. Annual reports will be published by the Government, the Post Office, the regulator and the users council on their roles and performance during the year.
We shall implement as much of this package as possible through administrative action and secondary legislation. However, primary legislation will be needed, as soon as parliamentary time permits, to complete the full package of reforms.
Primary legislation will be necessary to transform the Post Office into a public limited company. That will underline the new commercial freedoms and help to establish clearly the separate functions of ownership and management, by subjecting the Post Office to the full range of company law. In particular, the directors will owe their duty to the company, not directly to the Government.
There have been suggestions from some quarters that this is part of a plan to privatise the Post Office by stealth. There are no such plans. As we stated in our manifesto—


and we keep to our manifesto commitments—we intend to provide commercial freedom, while retaining the Post Office in public ownership.
I can therefore inform the House that the Act of Parliament to create the Post Office as a public limited company will make it clear that we would not seek to dispose of Post Office shares without further primary legislation.
As my predecessor's statement on 7 December made clear, we cannot ignore the possibility that the Post Office might wish to enter into a joint venture or strategic alliance with another company, and might wish to cement this with a limited sale or exchange of equity. In such cases, it would not always be sensible or practical to seek parliamentary approval through a separate Act of Parliament. However, I can assure the House that any such proposal would be debated and voted on in both Houses of Parliament.
To ensure that the Post Office can compete in the fast-moving domestic and international postal market, we will give the Post Office the greater commercial freedom that it has long desired. That will help the Post Office to be more competitive, and more responsive to market developments and evolving customer demands.
The Government's financial demand on the Post Office will be reduced to match commercial dividend rates. From April next year, it will be cut to 40 per cent. of post-tax profits—more than half the rate at which profits have been removed from the business in recent years. That will be worth an estimated £150 million a year—money that will go directly to the Post Office.
We shall also allow the Post Office to borrow at commercial rates for growth investments—up to £75 million a year without approval from the Government. That will give the Post Office greater freedom to enter into acquisitions, joint ventures, alliances and partnerships. However, the Government recognise that the Post Office has been starved of resources as a result of the previous Government's approach. The Post Office cannot wait until April next year for the additional resources necessary to ensure that it can compete in the modern postal market. We therefore intend to take action immediately.
I am pleased to inform the House that, in this financial year, we shall reduce the Government's financial demand on the Post Office to 50 per cent. of post-tax profits, and we shall also allow borrowing of £75 million. That will provide an immediate cash boost to the Post Office of £175 million. Taken together, our proposals for greater commercial freedom will bring an extra £600 million into the Post Office over the next three years.
I am confident that the White Paper maps out for the Post Office a future that will allow it to compete and win. We have a clear vision of a British Post Office that is world class and will be among the most successful in the world. The White Paper gives the Post Office management the commercial framework that it needs to turn that vision into reality. It is now up to management, in partnership with the work force, to respond to the exciting challenges ahead. The White Paper will put right the neglect of the past and deliver a Post Office fit for the 21st century. I commend it to the House.

Mrs. Angela Browning: I must thank the Secretary of State for making the White Paper

available to me at midday. He will forgive me for saying that I had a sense of déjà vu during his statement; indeed, at one point I had a vision of "Him Tarzan, me Jane."
This long-awaited and much-leaked White Paper has finally seen the light of day after two years of new Labour government. It has been passed like a parcel between the Treasury, which wants to privatise the Post Office, and the trade unions, which still have power in the Labour party. That was shown clearly this week in a letter from the general secretary of the Communication Workers Union, which was initially addressed to all Labour Members of Parliament, but was then circulated by them to the Conservatives. The general secretary said:
I thought the days of finding it necessary to write to Labour MPs about the future of the Post Office had gone … In view of the … promises made by the Labour Party and the government in respect of the future of the Post Office, we looked to a rosy future for the Post Office".
Today, we read in our newspapers of the threatened strike action that has resulted from the Secretary of State's announcement.
The Secretary of State has inherited a dog's breakfast from the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who retreated from full privatisation in the face of union opposition, so today we have a third way: Labour will not give the Post Office full commercial freedom, and a question mark remains over the future of rural post offices. The Government could have freed Royal Mail completely, while building in minimal standard safeguards to protect universal next-day delivery. They could have ensured the viability of rural post offices by introducing the planned payment of benefits through swipe cards, but they cancelled that proposal in May. Post Office revenue will drop by 30 per cent. and the Government will, yet again, have dumped the cost of administering the payment of benefits on to the small business sector.
Our Post Office is the most efficient in the world, and it should be given the chance to compete freely, but the White Paper is a mucky compromise between new Labour and old Labour. That is well summed up in a quote in the Financial Times of 2 July from a Minister, who said:
It's a long way from full liberalisation, which some of us would like.
The Secretary of State said that the White Paper sets the agenda for the Post Office to offer a world-class service for the 21st century. Post Office plc will not do that, as the Government must know. I predict that the Post Office will be fully privatised in the 21st century, because what we have before us today is clearly a temporary compromise that simply paves the way for further developments.
Many questions arise from the White Paper and I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would address as many of them as possible. May I deal first with matters pertaining to the Royal Mail? The plc will be subject to company law, as he said. Will the Government allow it to go bankrupt if it does not manage its financial affairs properly, or will they step in and underwrite the £75 million borrowing facility?
If the Government are prepared to do that—we should like a specific answer—anyone who lends will be lending virtually risk free, which, in other words, is a gilt-edged security. Would not that create a strong competitive advantage over other companies in the marketplace?


[HON. MEMBERS: "Stupid question."] It is not a stupid question. They would have to attract lending, despite all the attendant risks of the marketplace.
The Secretary of State referred to borrowing of up to £75 million with permission. How much will the Post Office be allowed to borrow in addition to that, with approval? Has a limit been set? Will the Government include Post Office plc borrowing in their debt totals, or is that another bit of borrowing that will be tucked away in the figures that nobody can find? Will the existing Post Office Counters network be free to handle any accounts for mail over 50p? With the reduction of the external financing limit to 50 per cent., will the £1 billion cost of Post Office automation be funded from its profits over several years?
What will trigger a share swap or purchase using shares? Can the Secretary of State set out the timetable, given that he has already identified that primary legislation will be needed? If the Post Office were approached for such a deal, the time scale involved in getting legislation through the House would not be conducive to the marketplace. Presumably, he will announce that the Government will make this a priority in terms of Government time and legislation.
May I turn to matters that affect the regional network of post offices? First, do the Government intend to retain Crown offices? How will the automatic credit transfer be funded? Each post office will now be required to set up a connection with a person's bank, so that the benefit can be transferred from the bank to the post office and the individual can collect it in cash. Who will fund the cost of that?
Do the Government intend to deliver more services via the Post Office network? We have recently had the announcement that post offices are to be included in the delivery of passports, and we all know of the crisis that the Government have created in the passport service. Will the Secretary of State identify in the White Paper market opportunity where the Post Office can make up the 30 per cent. revenue drop that it will experience as a result of the automatic credit transfer system? How will people without bank accounts, or those who are prevented by law from holding bank accounts, be able to access cash payments through the Post Office network? What constraints will be applied to post offices after automation in terms of their freedom to use automation to offer other services, for example, ticketing? What constraints will there be in terms of the marketplace and the range of other services that the Post Office would like to be able to deliver?

Mr. Byers: We all listened with interest to find out the Conservative approach to the measures contained in the White Paper. The conclusion that one reached is that the Conservative party wants to move to the immediate privatisation of the Post Office.

Mrs. Browning: indicated assent.

Mr. Byers: I see that the hon. Lady is nodding in agreement. I am sure that many will note that with interest. The Government's package is balanced. It matches commercial freedoms with liberalisation, but within the public sector. We believe that is the correct approach to take.
The hon. Lady asked about the power to borrow money. The borrowing of up to £75 million a year will not require Government approval. Government approval will be necessary for borrowing in excess of that sum. We make it clear that the Government will approve Post Office borrowing for investment cases that are consistent with the strategic plan, commercially robust and pose no undue risk to the taxpayer. That is the approach that we shall adopt.
The hon. Lady asked what would happen if the Post Office became bankrupt. That is an interesting approach for the Conservatives to take, because it was under their stewardship that the Treasury took 93p in the pound from Post Office profits. It is worth reminding people of that fact.
We believe that we should have the package that we are putting before the House today. It ensures the universal service below 50p—the same price for delivery anywhere in the country—and there needs to be compensation for achieving that desirable objective. We make no apology for putting in place the policies that will achieve that particular objective.
Crown offices will be established. As I said in my statement and as the White Paper states, we have agreed with the Post Office that 15 per cent. of all Post Office counters transactions should go through Crown Offices.
It is worth stressing that, for the first time in law, criteria will be established on the availability and access to post office network facilities. Those criteria will be monitored by the regulator and the new, more powerful consumers council. We expect the post office network to offer more facilities than would have been available through the benefit payment card under the Horizon project. The new Horizon project that we are developing with interested partners will provide more facilities and services through the post office network.
The response of the Conservative official spokesperson was to take a negative approach. There was no welcome for the additional £600 million for the Post Office; no welcome for the commitment to a universal service; no welcome for the additional powers to consumers and no welcome for effective regulation. That should come as no surprise. The Conservative Opposition want to wash their hands of responsibility for the Post Office, and to go for privatisation. That is not our approach. We want a balanced package, with commercial freedom and liberalization—a Post Office fit for the 21st century.

Mr. Peter Mandelson: May I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent statement—not least because it bears more than a passing resemblance to the original proposals in December? I want to probe him on two areas of concern to me. First, with regard to commercial freedoms for the Post Office, will he confirm that the arrangements for the procedures governing the Government's approval of Post Office borrowing remain precisely as set out by the Government last December?
Secondly, on the speed of implementation of these changes, he is right in saying that the Post Office is in great danger of slipping behind the tough international competition. It is extremely important that there is no undue delay in implementing these changes to enable the Post Office to compete, flourish and grow its business in the future. What can be achieved by means of secondary,


European-related legislation, so that the framework of competition can be put in place without waiting for primary legislation, which I suspect may be some time in coming forward?

Mr. Byers: I thank my right hon. Friend for his warm words of support for the proposals, which build on much of the good work that he carried out as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), was also Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and as she chairs the Cabinet Committee dealing with future legislation, I hope that, when it comes to the need to find a parliamentary slot for primary legislation, she will be persuaded by the strong case made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson).
However, progress can be made without primary legislation. We can introduce further liberalisation through an order, and we can develop the powers of the regulator through secondary legislation, although not with the full range of rights and responsibilities that we shall ultimately provide. Thus some steps can be taken.
On the important point of commercial freedom, I confirm that the mechanism referred to by my right hon. Friend remains unchanged. The procedure that he agreed when he was Secretary of State remains in place. In addition, the criteria that will be used when considering borrowing for investment will have just three aspects: it will have to be consistent with the strategic plan, commercially robust, and pose no undue risk to the taxpayer. I hope that that clarifies the position for my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Colin Breed: First, may I add my thanks to the Secretary of State for his courtesy in providing a copy of the statement at 12 o'clock for us to see?
I broadly welcome proposals which, for some time, the Liberal Democrats have been promoting and calling for—a balance between providing greater commercial freedom and continuing to maintain, into the foreseeable future, the Post Office within public ownership.
I agree with the comments on the delays that could be involved. Clearly, if three Secretaries of State have had a hand in the matter, there will already have been considerable delay in bringing forward the proposals. If we are to wait any length of time before legislation comes before the House—clearly, opportunities have already been lost—new opportunities that may be open to the Post Office will not be taken advantage of, so it is essential that there are no further delays.
It is a balanced package, but it is also rather timid. For example, greater commercial freedoms are available now—they are certainly greater than before—but they are nowhere near as great as they could, or even should, be. On the borrowing limits that are being provided, £75 million may seem a lot of money, but, for a business that is turning over some £7 billion, it cannot be seen as a particularly huge borrowing requirement. If a business that was turning over £7 billion was likely to go bust by borrowing £75 million, something would clearly be wrong. Therefore, the borrowing limit that might be available to the Post Office of £75 million per year is not excessive.
May I make two other points—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the question?"] May I question two other points? The question of Crown post offices is rather confusing.

They are to undertake 15 per cent. of the business and some new ones may open, but am I to understand that some could close and that there may be consolidation—some Crown post offices that are currently open may close?
In terms of the other post offices, for so long, small sub-post offices have been confined to the back of newsagents and other small stores, stuck in a corner next to a cupboard, where there is hardly any promotion. If post offices are to have new facilities and new services, and are to promote themselves in a new way, can we see a return to high street post offices with proper sign posting, to which people can go without meandering through books, knickers and everything else to buy their stamps? Post offices should be prominent on our high streets, not concealed in small stores.
I hope that, in that way, the Post Office will become a proud institution again, ready to serve its public with new services and new facilities, and will not again seek to hide itself in other places.

Madam Speaker: Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, I remind him that I heard only one question, so I hope that he will not take long to answer. I remind the House and any Member whom I call that I want a direct question to the Secretary of State. Many hon. Members are trying to get in on the statement. I want brisk questions and brisk answers, please.

Mr. Byers: I am tempted to say that, for some customers, having to go through books and knickers might be a unique selling point for the future of the Post Office network, but, on the specific question that I did hear, which was in relation to the £75 million approval, it is not a limit. A total of £75 million can be borrowed without approval. Over and above that, there can be increased borrowing, but it will require Government approval.
An arrangement was arrived at between my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool and me when I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury. We agreed that nearly £300 million should be used to acquire German Parcels after the 7 December statement. That is a good illustration of how a useful alliance for a purchase acquisition can be progressed. It was a good example of how, with a fair degree of haste, because it was an important commercial decision, we could provide £300 million, or thereabouts, to allow an acquisition to take place. That will still be the case, but we will put it on a firmer footing. The post-tax dividend will be reduced; £75 million will be allowed without approval; and, over and above that, amounts of more than £75 million will be subject to Government approval. I think that that is a balanced way forward.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that the statement that he has made today—which had all been fully released, as usual, by spin doctors and in broadcasts—will be seen by many people as stage 1 of the privatisation that the Conservative party wants; that the Post Office is the cheapest, most efficient, most popular and most advanced post office in the world; that it is a world-class post office; that, on its own, it invented the giro and introduced the national data processing service; and that the Post Office's greatest enemy has been the Treasury? From the very beginning, the Treasury has claimed that economic investment in the Post Office


had been treated like welfare benefits, and has prevented the Post Office from having freedom which it should have had in its current position.
Given the recent statements, which indicate deep hostility to the public sector—that has been noticed by people—is the Secretary of State aware that it is not hard to believe that this is the first stage of full privatisation of the Post Office? He cannot rely on people being persuaded by the arguments that he has made today; as an old Postmaster General, they are not very persuasive to me.

Mr. Byers: There are no grounds for complacency on the Post Office. It is currently providing an excellent service—I made that point in my initial statement—but, in a dramatically and rapidly changing world, the status quo is simply not an option for the Post Office. There will have to be change, modernisation and reform. Under the proposals that I have outlined today, the Post Office will become a plc, but one that is under public ownership. That meets the manifesto commitment on which I stood, and on which my right hon. Friend stood in the 1997 general election: greater commercial freedom for the Post Office, coupled with liberalisation, but within public ownership. That is exactly what the White Paper delivers.
If, at any future date, there is a desire for the sale of shares, the matter will have to come back separately to the House for a debate and decision, when hon. Members on both sides will be able to vote on it. Today, we are delivering on our manifesto commitment to commercial freedom under public ownership. That is the way forward for the Post Office, as outlined in the White Paper.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Unlike the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), may I warmly congratulate the Secretary of State on taking this historic first step on the route to privatisation? When I was working in the Department of Trade and Industry for my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), old Labour Members were united in their opposition to such a step. Now, by his statement, the Secretary of State has converted them. Will he confirm that the statement goes far further than the previous Government's plans—we were talking about making only the Royal Mail a plc, whereas the Government propose to make the entire Post Office a plc?
Will the Secretary of State also confirm that there is no business of that type anywhere in the world that has not sought, and is not seeking, international strategic alliances? Therefore, is it not inevitable that some shares will have to be sold? It would be much fairer to the House if he would confirm that now.
Finally, as the Secretary of State has done so much to burnish his radical Thatcherite credentials, would he like to join the No Turning Back group of Conservative Members?

Mr. Byers: There is—

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Just say yes.

Mr. Byers: There is a serious issue here, and I am not quite sure that the hon. Member for Gainsborough

(Mr. Leigh) took it quite as seriously as perhaps he should. We have based the plc and public ownership model for the Post Office on one that works very well in other countries, such as Australia, New Zealand, Finland and Sweden. The post offices in those countries have flexibility and commercial freedom, and are able to work in the wider national interest. We believe that Britain's Post Office can do so as well. Clearly, in due course, there will be consideration of strategic alliances and acquisitions—this is a rapidly changing world—and I specifically mentioned those considerations in my statement.
I reassert that there are no plans to dispose of shares. If legislation is brought to the House in the near future, it will contain no such proposals. Such a Bill would make it clear that, if there were any intention to do that, it could not be done by stealth. The matter would have to come back to the House for parliamentary approval.

Mr. Alan Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that those of us who have argued for the past seven years that it is possible for the Post Office to be given the commercial and financial freedom that it needs while remaining entirely publicly owned, this is a bit of a red letter day? I was pleased that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) reminded us that the Conservatives were one-dimensional on the issue when they were in government: they wanted not only to privatise the Post Office but to break it up. Fortunately, they retreated from that and we are able to take the Post Office forward.
I have some concerns about the reduction in the monopoly limit. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will consider linking that reduced monopoly limit to the retail prices index, so that it does not just wither on the vine and erode over time? Secondly, will he ensure that there is a proper study with all interested parties before any further erosion of the reserved area that may be caused by European Union directives?

Mr. Byers: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome for the main thrust of the proposals in the White Paper. Given his considerable personal knowledge of the Post Office and the postal service, it is helpful for the House to have his views on the proposals. I shall consider whether the reduced monopoly limit of 50p should be linked to the RPI. I think that it would be appropriate to do so. Any study into the impact and effects of liberalisation will be the responsibility of the regulator. We believe that it is appropriate to liberalise by reducing the monopoly to 50p, given the greater commercial freedom that we are introducing. The figure is pitched at a level that will ensure that the Post Office can still meet its universal service obligation. We want to increase liberalisation, but still deliver on that important commitment.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: In replying to my question, will the Secretary of State put spin and hype to one side? As a Back-Bench constituency Member of Parliament, I am concerned about the efficiency of the postal services and the cost and reliability of deliveries. My constituency has a large rural area, parts of which are remote. Will he guarantee to me that his proposals will ensure that all my constituents, even in the remotest areas,


will get a daily delivery service and that the post office facilities currently available will not be reduced in any way, but will, hopefully, be increased and improved?

Mr. Byers: When hon. Members have had a chance to see the full range of details in the White Paper, they will see that our proposals will deliver an improved service. I can confirm that the Post Office will be legally required to guarantee, on each working day of the week, a daily delivery to every address in the country, wherever it might be. Whether it is in Macclesfield or Manchester, Newcastle or Newquay, the provision will be the same. As has been said, whether it is Skye or Southwark the same obligation will apply. That will be in law for the first time. That is a good example of how we are moving forward and improving the service provided by the Post Office.
The network of counters is a real issue in rural communities. It was highlighted earlier this week in a study by the Women's Institute. For the first time, we are providing criteria for access to the facilities of the post office network. For the first time, consumers will be able to object to, and oppose, any proposal to remove such a facility from their community. We are building in new powers.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and, in particular, my hon. Friend the Minister on their hard work over such a long time. This has been a long-awaited development, and the complexity of the deal is evident. Will the regulator be involved in the consideration of the universal service obligation and the network of post offices across the country? What is my right hon. Friend's view on public pay in the public sector? Will the pay arrangements of the Post Office be part of the new independent structure?

Mr. Byers: I thank my hon. Friend. Much of the work of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry—of which he is Chairman—relating to the Post Office has informed the White Paper that we are presenting today. We thank him and his Committee for that work.
We are not opting for an individual to be a named regulator; we are adopting a recommendation, with which we agree, from the review of the utilities and telecommunications regulators: that it is better to have a commission of perhaps five or six people, with someone acting as its chairman. That is the way in which we intend to regulate the Post Office. The commission will be responsible for overseeing the universal service obligation and the network.
As we move to give greater commercial freedom to the Post Office, it is important that we recognise also the social obligations that go with the Post Office in Great Britain. Having a national network is one of those social obligations that we are now consolidating as a result of the measures in the White Paper.
The Post Office will still be part of the public sector pay remit. However, we have agreed with the Treasury that there will be opportunities for greater flexibility and for incentives to be offered to people working in the postal service in the new situation in the years ahead.

Mrs. Ray Michie: Given that there are 37 fewer sub-post offices open in Scotland now than

in 1997—some of the closures are temporary—does the Secretary of State agree that any extra money from the Treasury should be channelled towards financial incentives for sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, whose earnings, at about £2.70 an hour, are well below the minimum wage? It is therefore difficult to get people to staff those sub-post offices. I am particularly concerned about sub-post offices in rural areas. Can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that they will continue to pay out pensions and benefits? Many of the little villages in my area are 30 or 40 miles from a bank and there is no public transport.

Mr. Byers: The hon. Lady makes an important point. Clearly, I cannot guarantee that every post office network facility will remain in existence for the foreseeable future. However, this year, for the first time, £175 million extra has been made available to the Post Office, and that money could be used to enhance the network system. As the hon. Lady rightly said, there will be opportunities to attract people to run post offices who might not have been prepared to do so in other circumstances.
As a practical demonstration of our inclusive approach, representatives of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses are, for the first time, forming a working group within my Department to plan the future of the network. They are in at the ground level, and I am sure they will be arguing hard to get a better deal from the Post Office. I am pleased that, as a result of the extra £175 million this year and the £600 million over the next three years, the Post Office will now have the resources to deal with matters that are regarded as a priority.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I am sure that no one disagrees with the ambition that the Post Office should be as up to date as possible and ready to enter whatever new markets it likes, but why does it have to become a public limited company to do so?

Mr. Byers: There are several reasons. A public limited company is a business organisation that is recognised by the people who deal with these matters. It is a tried and tested model that works very well in postal services in other countries. In Sweden and Finland, the plcs in public ownership are very effective and progressive. The Swedish post office has just announced that it is to give a free e-mail address to every citizen in Sweden. The post offices in Australia and New Zealand are rapidly moving ahead, embracing new technology.
Perhaps most importantly, having plc status makes a clear distinction between the rights and duties and responsibilities of the directors. They will no longer be directly accountable to the Government; their primary responsibility will be as directors of the Post Office. A clear distinction between management and ownership will be important in the years ahead. I give my colleagues who have reservations about plc status the assurance that if, at some future date, there is any consideration of a disposal of the shares, there will be a separate opportunity for hon. Members to vote on that.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: There have been several closures of small rural post offices in my constituency. One of the biggest problems for the Post Office is recruiting new people to run small sub-post offices. Will the Secretary of State direct the


Post Office to pay the national minimum wage to sub-postmasters for the hours for which they are contracted?

Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman opposed the minimum wage legislation, so he will know that all employees are covered by the national minimum wage but self-employed people are not. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there is some confusion in his thinking. We are giving the Post Office commercial freedom, so it will not be my responsibility or that of any future Secretary of State to give it orders or instructions. We are no longer in that game. Commercial freedom means allowing the Post Office to manage within the strategic plan that we agree with it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend advocate that, when we draw up our manifesto proposals for the next general election, privatisation should not figure among them? Did he consult the trade unions, did they agree, and will any job losses arise from his statement? Does he have any scars on his back?

Mr. Byers: Having been a member of the Labour party for 26 years, I have many scars on my back, as I am sure my hon. Friend also has. The manifesto will be determined not by me but through the Labour party's normal policy-making process. The trade unions were involved in discussing the White Paper and how we can take the Post Office into the next century. They will express their views on the details that it contains. I hope that when they have studied it and seen the balanced approach that we are taking, they will feel that we have made the right decision.
I am sure that no job losses will arise from the recommendations that we are making today, for the simple reason that we are providing extra money for the Post Office. Hon. Members should not forget that we are providing an extra £175 million for the Post Office immediately, this year, and £600 million over the next three years. I hope that more people will be employed as a result of today's announcement.

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) asked about the justification for continued public ownership of the shares, and the Secretary of State has laid great stress on the new regulatory framework that he intends will ensure the continuation of universal service and protect against the abuse of monopoly by Post Office plc. When he considers whether the shares should remain in public ownership, will he speculate about the arguments that might be advanced by the hon. Member for Bolsover that they should? Will he find those arguments persuasive, or would it not be a better use of taxpayers' resources to realis0e their investment in Post Office plc? Would not that enable investment to be made in the creaking infrastructure of transport and schools, for which the taxpayer is directly responsible?

Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman used to be a Treasury Minister, and his was one of the dead hands that used to lie on the Post Office. I do not know whether it was under his stewardship that 93p in the pound was taken away from Post Office profits. I am not in the business of

speculating about the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) may put forward. He will make those arguments in his own way, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on what they might be.

Mr. Derek Foster: In celebrating the world-class success of the Post Office as a public business, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on granting it greater commercial freedom in the public sector? That is essential for the Post Office's competitiveness in Europe. Is he aware that he has given enormous heart to those of us who have always believed that the public service can be modernised and made fit for the challenges of the 21st century, without the headlong rush to privatisation?

Mr. Byers: I thank my right hon. Friend, who I know follows these issues extremely closely. The proposals in today's White Paper are balanced and do not permit a diversionary argument about privatisation of the Post Office. I hope that I have made it clear, through the establishment of a public limited company for the Post Office, that privatisation is not the Government's objective. We want to give the Post Office greater commercial freedom in the public sector. That was our 1997 manifesto commitment, and the proposals in the White Paper will deliver it.

Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the Secretary of State say why he thinks that the Germans are fully privatising their post office? Might the reason be that they want it to be a leading global player? How does he think our Post Office will be able to compete with that?

Mr. Skinner: I thought the hon. Gentleman was against the Germans.

Mr. Byers: We managed to take a bit of the private sector German Parcels business into public ownership a few months ago. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover will welcome that example of the public sector taking over some of the private sector.
The decision about the German post office was a matter for the German authorities. Our job is to determine what is best for Britain. We believe that we can build on the Post Office that we have, and that a plc in public ownership is the best model to achieve the challenging objectives set out in today's White Paper.

Mr. John McWilliam: Why was the idea of an independently owned public corporation dropped? Was it because the Treasury operates under rules drawn up in the 1920s and 1930s? Is not it about time that it was dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century, so that we do not have this nonsense again when attention turns to the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, which is the next target? Finally, did my right hon. Friend see the expression on the faces of Conservative Members when he announced the formation of a plc for the Post Office? It reminded me of the look that my dog has when I leave the fridge door open.

Mr. Byers: We did consider in detail the arguments for establishing an independent publicly owned company. Much research has been done into that model, but we


found fundamental weaknesses over management and ownership issues and lines of responsibility, and we fell back on a well-known type of business organisation—the plc. We knew that concerns would be raised about public ownership, so we have given the guarantees clearly set out in the White Paper. I assure my hon. Friend that the IPOC model was considered in detail, but that we felt that it was not appropriate.

Mr. Michael Fallon: Is the Secretary of State not creating a rather messy hybrid, a sort of pre-privatisation Patco, which has the potential to abuse its dominant position? Can he reassure other communications businesses that the greater commercial freedom which he is offering the Post Office will not be fully exercised until the regulatory framework is in place?

Mr. Byers: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we need to establish the regulator to make sure that there is no abuse of the monopoly position in the area in which there is no competition. Where items cost more than 50p or weigh more than 150 g, there will be competition, and the regulator will have no role. We hope to establish the regulator by April next year to ensure that there is no abuse of the type outlined by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that in guaranteeing the crucial network of post offices across the country, he will make it a requirement that the level and range of services must be maintained? Services must be protected for the future and developed as the Post Office changes in its new format.

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am keen to establish a post office network that does not deal only with payment of benefits, which it does effectively, or even with extensions to passports—it should offer a range of services not currently offered. As part of our agenda for modernising Government, we should see the network of 19,000 post offices as a key to local delivery of important Government services. A working party has been set up in my Department to ensure that we modernise the network and that new technology will be made available. We have to make sure that extended services are available to meet the needs of people locally, to support local communities and to ensure the future of the network.

Mr. Peter Brooke: May I ask a London question? Of the 12 postal districts in my constituency, the quality of

service in two is markedly inferior to that in the other 10, for reasons, I believe, of recruitment difficulty. Will the competitive and commercial freedom and the pay flexibility of which the Secretary of State has spoken allow the new Post Office to address those problems so that, under the universal obligation, we may have equality of standards and services for customers in the same marketplace?

Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point which affects London, other cities and, as the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said, rural communities. We need to ensure that the guaranteed level of service is met. Under the White Paper's provisions, the Post Office can be fined for failure to achieve that service. However, we want the service to work, rather than have to apply fines when it does not. When the Post Office considers remuneration packages, it will also consider how to retain and recruit postal workers, particularly in areas such as London where the Labour market is not as flexible as in other parts of the country.

Mr. Jim Cousins: Many of us still have to be convinced that the public limited company route down which my right hon. Friend is taking the Post Office is the right route. Who will exercise the role and responsibilities of shareholders? Is this to be a people's company, and if so, how will that be done? Will he confirm that his proposals mean that every piece of capital investment of less than £75 million a year may require Treasury approval, while every capital investment of more than £75 million certainly will require Treasury approval? What has happened to the historic surpluses of the Post Office, amounting to almost £2 billion? Under his proposals, they seem to be parked at the Treasury.

Mr. Byers: I look forward to convincing my hon. Friend about the merits of today's proposals. To clarify matters: for the £75 million borrowing power, no further approval will be required; over and above that, approval will have to be obtained. As for the historic surpluses, they will be retained by the Treasury, but, as we have made clear, there will be changes to the balance sheet in two or three years time as we put the Post Office on to a more commercial footing.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. We must now move on to the business statement.

Business of the House

Sir George Young: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): MONDAY 12 JULY—Motion to approve the Eighth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
Estimates Day [2nd Allotted Day].
There will be a debate on the office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of schools in England, followed by a debate on transport policy. Details will be given in the Official Report.
At 10 o'clock, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
Motion to approve Ways and Means resolution on the Food Standards Bill.
TUESDAY 13 JULY—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No 2) Bill.
Proceedings on the Northern Ireland Bill.
Motion on the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1999.
WEDNESDAY 14 JULY—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Pollution Prevention and Control Bill[Lords].
Remaining stages of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Trustee Delegation Bill [Lords].
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
THURSDAY 15 JULY—Opposition Day [18th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
FRIDAY 16 JULY—Motion on the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Appointed Day) Order.
There will be a debate on policing of London on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
The House will understand that there remains some uncertainty as to the business for the week commencing 19 July, but it will include:
MONDAY 19 JULY—Opposition Day [19th Allotted Day].
There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
FRIDAY 23 JULY—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to be reminded that on Monday 19 July, there will be a debate on sectors and activities excluded from the working time directive in European Standing Committee C. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Monday 19 July 1999:
European Standing Committee C—Relevant European Union documents: (a) 13526/98; (b) Unnumbered EM submitted by DTI dated 18 May 1999. Sectors and Activities excluded from the Working Time Directive;

(c) Unnumbered EM. Submitted by DTI dated 21 June 1999. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee reports: HC 34-vi and HC 34-xxiv (1998–99)]

Sir George Young: The House is grateful for next week's business and for the hint as to business for the following week.
In view of the interest in the White Paper on Post Office reform, on which a statement has just been made, may we have a debate, in Government time, on the important reforms contained in that White Paper?
On Monday, when we debate the report of the Standards and Privileges Committee, will the Foreign Secretary be speaking, so that he can apologise to the Select Committee for the way in which its reports were treated, and so that he can respond to the section of the report that rejected his arguments? Will there be a Government response to the recommendations on the ministerial code, in order to avoid any recurrence of the unhappy events of last February?
On Wednesday, in Prime Minister's Question Time, may we now split the time between the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister so that the House can hear both sides of the arguments on the performance of those working in the public sector, on transport policy, on co-operation with the Liberal Democrats, and on all the other issues about which the two right hon. Gentlemen disagree?
The right hon. Lady has not announced the Second Reading of the Railways Bill, which was published yesterday, and which will now, presumably, hit the legislative buffers. Has she read today's Financial Times, which refers to the
Railways Bill, which could become law before the Queen's Speech in November"?
Will she dismiss that absurd piece of spinning by the Deputy Prime Minister's Department? Will she comment on the Financial Times statement that:
The Bill is important to Mr Prescott's political credibility given his earlier failure to win legislative time."?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) made it clear that we want to facilitate the passage of the Northern Ireland Bill, to be taken on Tuesday. Will the right hon. Lady tell the House when it will be published?
Friday's debate on the policing of London will be preceded by a motion on the Northern Ireland order. We understand the reasons for that, but may we have extra time for the debate so that it is not curtailed? Will the right hon. Lady confirm that the Home Secretary will be speaking for the Government?
The right hon. Lady has not announced a debate on public expenditure. Can she, however, confirm the undertaking that has been given that such a debate will take place before the House rises for the recess? May I also renew my plea for a debate on the report of the royal commission on long-term care?
Before the end of the Session, will we be able to debate the report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, which was published in March?
Finally, is the right hon. Lady able to give us a date for the state opening of Parliament?

Mrs. Beckett: I make that 10 questions, but I will do my best to answer them.
I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the Post Office in the near future, but we have announced the provision of Opposition time, which could be used to discuss a number of the issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would speak in the debate on the motion to approve the eighth report of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. The answer is no. The Government have already made clear, and will make clear again, their response to the proposals on the ministerial code. That does not require any formal statement.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to arrange for a "script" to be discussed by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. Let me simply tell him that, when the leader and deputy leader of the Labour party say—as they do—that they agree with each other and admire each other's progress, they go on working together. When that happens in the Tory party, one of those involved is sacked.
The Bill to set up the new Strategic Rail Authority has been published, and will no doubt be presented to the House in due course. I cannot account for the story in the Financial Times, but it does not sound to me as though that story was spun by anyone: it sounds as though someone got hold of the wrong end of the stick.
I think I am right in saying that we hope and anticipate that the Northern Ireland Bill will be published on Monday. As for Friday's debate, of course I appreciate the importance of the debate on policing in London, and I undertake to reflect its importance if the Northern Ireland order takes up time. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will, in fact, be speaking in the debate.
I have not lost sight of the request for a day's debate on public expenditure. I shall endeavour to provide one before the recess, although I cannot undertake to provide a debate on long-term care. I note the right hon. Gentleman's request for a debate on the report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, and I will bear it in mind—although, as he will appreciate, we have much to deal with before the recess, and I can only undertake to bear his request in mind.
I apologise to the House: I hoped to be able to give a date for the state opening. Things are still in the melting pot, but I will give a date as soon as possible, and I hope that that will be shortly.

Mr. David Winnick: Is it intended that the Secretary of State for Health will make a statement next week on the ambiguity, or loophole, in the law relating to the donation of kidneys for transplant? Is it not totally unacceptable, in any circumstances, for racist conditions to be attached to such donations? What has occurred has caused a great deal of concern in the House and in the country. Moreover, it could lead to the imposing of religious conditions in, say, Northern Ireland, in regard to Catholics and Protestants. The Secretary of State has already expressed his dismay about what has happened. I hope that it will be possible for him to make a statement in the House very soon.

Mrs. Beckett: As my hon. Friend says, my right hon. Friend has already made clear how appalled he is—and I think the whole House is appalled—by what has

been reported. An investigation into how this came about was launched immediately, and we intend to ensure that it never happens again. As everyone has said, the setting of such conditions is unacceptable. I fear that I cannot tell my hon. Friend how soon the results of the investigation will be available, or whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be in a position to make a statement before the recess; but I can assure him that the matter is being looked into, with a view to ensuring that this does not happen again.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Before every recess, there tends to be a big build-up of potential statements to the House. That is understandable and it is right. Obviously, while the House is sitting it should be given information if that is possible. Madam Speaker has, on a number of occasions, expressed concern about the way in which information is given to the House by Ministers, and how often—sadly—it appears to be pre-empted by statements made through the media, press conferences or other means.
May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to one specific example, which causes great concern? In yesterday's debate, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said:
when an MMC report contains commercially sensitive information, it is not the subject of a statement to the House, since the City would have notice of such a statement's being made and that might not be appropriate. That practice has been adopted by successive Governments."—[Official Report, 7 July 1999; Vol. 334, c. 1091.]
That is patent nonsense, because the City and everyone else was given notice that a statement was to be made by means of a planted question on the Order Paper on Tuesday, so they had far more notice that the report was to be released. The result of the present practice is that the City is given more information in advance than is necessary, because a statement is advertised to the House only at 1 o'clock, which gives us extremely short notice.
Will the Leader of the House urgently examine that practice, not only as it applies to Monopolies and Mergers Commission reports, but in the context of the general procedure for making statements to the House? Will she come back to the House within the next week to inform us of how she intends to ensure that the practice better serves the House, our constituents and the country?

Mrs. Beckett: No, I am afraid not. I certainly undertake to draw the hon. Gentleman's concerns to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but, as he made clear yesterday, it is not merely a matter of a statement being made, but the content of the statement and the impact of it. As he also pointed out yesterday, the practice he followed is the one that has been identified by successive Governments as being the best way through that difficult area. Indeed, it has been followed by successive Governments for good reason.

Mr. Jim Marshall: As I am a delegate from this House to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union, may I ask my right hon. Friend to arrange an urgent debate—hopefully before the new Session of Parliament in November, if not before the recess—on the future of the WEU? She will be aware that the Cologne summit resulted in the suggestion that certain of the institutions of the WEU should be folded into the second pillar of the European Union in a way that foresees


no continuing function for the Parliamentary Assembly. If that procedure is followed, it will lead to an increased democratic deficit, especially in foreign affairs, within the European Union, so will my right hon. Friend arrange an urgent debate on the matter?

Mrs. Beckett: I am aware of my hon. Friend's long and distinguished service with the WEU. As he says, an important proposal has been made that would have considerable future impact. I am not sure that I can undertake to find time for such a debate before the recess, although I hear what he says about wanting to explore the implications before the parliamentary Session closes. I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who I know will share my hon. Friend's concern.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Of the 37 questions for Question Time today, only one on higher education won through. Will the Leader of the House contemplate an early debate on higher education, so that we do not give that most important sector of our society the impression that the House is neglecting it?

Mrs. Beckett: I am not sure that I can find time for such a debate in the near future. I share the right hon. Gentleman's view—I am sure that the House does too—that it is a pity that, sometimes, the unintended effects of our random selection procedure mean that an area of discussion does not get its fair share of attention. However, he will have noted that we have identified time for Opposition days, so perhaps he will lobby his right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House on that subject.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have today announced a ban on the use of lindane, a powerful insecticide used in farming to treat seeds? She will be aware of the campaign against the use of that carcinogenic substance, which can cause all sorts of problems, including hormone disruption, nervous system damage and birth defects.
There is also growing evidence linking lindane exposure to increased incidence of breast cancer. I congratulate the Government on their action, but will the Secretary of State come to the House next week to make a formal announcement of the ban so that we can raise issues pertaining to it?

Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend has taken a great interest in and campaigned on that matter, as have others in the House, for a very long time, and I shall certainly draw her remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend. I do not anticipate that there will be, in the near future, a particular debate in which that issue can be aired. However, I am mindful that the pre-recess debates will take place, and my hon. Friend may be fortunate in catching the eye of the Chair on that occasion.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate that next week there will be a lot of business affecting Northern Ireland, but can we have an urgent debate on the

role of the Parades Commission in Northern Ireland, where nationalists and Orange people have criticised it? I trust that the Government will not follow the silly middle argument that the commission must be all right because both sides are criticising it. The commission is the only semi-judicial body that I am aware of that changes its reasons for determinations and, perhaps following the House and the Government, leaks from the top down before determinations are made. Three days in advance of a determination, its agents are telling folk what is happening.
That is a serious matter and one that we are aware of in my constituency, where some years ago I offered an olive branch to those from the Lower Ormeau, as they call themselves, but it was immediately rejected. They constantly say that nobody wants to talk to them, but they, like those in Portadown, have also refused to talk.

Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on that matter, although I know of the hon. Gentleman's concern about it. I recognise that there will always be difficulty about the role of the Parades Commission, which has an extremely difficult job that it strives to discharge impartially. It is, of course, a key part of its role to try to get both parties to reach an accommodation—I recognise that the hon. Gentleman referred to such efforts a moment ago—and it is only when they do not do so that the commission has to step in. When such a body operates in those circumstances, where there has already been a failure to agree, its role is bound to be a difficult one, and it is bound to come under criticism, as it does on occasion, from both sides.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Was my right hon. Friend being deliberately vague about the Opposition day? I got the impression that the Tories have not been able to come up with a subject for their Opposition day.

Mr. John Bercow: Nonsense.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Spoilt for choice.

Mr. Skinner: I heard a cry of "Nonsense" from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who is already in the gateway, but I have to tell him that in all my years in the House I have never heard of an Opposition being unable to say within two or three days of a debate what the subject of it will be. I would hazard a guess that if the Government were declaring that they were unable to tell us what was on the agenda next week, there would be an almighty row from the Tories. Are they unable to tell us about their debate because the Leader of the Opposition is away trying to deal with the problem whether to join the fascist group in Europe or the federal group and, if the latter group is chosen, trying to get an opt-out clause so that the Tories can join the federal group but not really be federal?

Mrs. Beckett: I fear that my hon. Friend has indeed identified the nub of the problem, as he so frequently does. I am unable to give the House details of what the Opposition will debate because they have not decided that. I have not explored the precise reason for that indecision, but as my hon. Friend says, it is extremely unusual, particularly for a party that is always alleging


that people do not treat the House with enough respect. The fact that we do not know what the Conservative party intends to debate may even be unprecedented.
As for the issue of the Conservative's half in, half out membership of the European People's party, I suspect that it will be a rich seam of difficulty that my hon. Friend can mine in the future.

Mr. David Tredinnick: Will the Leader of the House find time—perhaps in the autumn—for a debate on the hosiery and knitwear industry? Is she aware that it faces very severe difficulties at the moment, as the closure of mechanics' courses in my constituency testifies? Despite efforts to diversify and despite tremendous work, the industry faces a decline, and there is a general feeling among workers that although the Government are prepared to support the motor industry, they ignore petitions such as the one that I presented to Parliament recently on behalf of the hosiery and knitwear industry.

Mrs. Beckett: I certainly cannot undertake to find time before the recess for a debate, although I am aware of the great concern that exists in the hosiery and knitwear industry. No Member in the House likes to hear of employment being lost, or of companies in difficulty. The hon. Gentleman knows, however, that there have been long-standing problems in that industry, and the Government have striven to work with it to secure improved opportunities and prosperity.
We shall have pre-recess debates, and the hon. Gentleman may seek to raise the matter then. I fear that I cannot find time for a special debate in the near future and cannot undertake necessarily to be able to do so in the autumn.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Will my right hon. Friend, as the person who was the first to foresee the scandal of pensions mis-selling in the early 1980s, support a call for a debate on a scandal of similar proportions—the scandal of mortgage mis-selling? The relevant Select Committee has called for regulation. There is a need to establish an independent advisory service for the public, perhaps fee-based but certainly separate from the need to earn commission. Is she aware that this morning's edition of Financial Adviser drew attention to the sacking of a man who wrote a publication known as "The Mortgage Bible", which gave invaluable advice to the public? Is there not a case for exposing the fact that the Council of Mortgage Lenders is very much a self-serving and self-interested organisation and is not serving its customers—those who borrow—who are being mis-sold mortgages on a huge scale?

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I well recall—as he does—the warnings that were given to the previous Government and the degree to which we, and many outside the House, urged on them that there should be some precautionary supervision of the selling of pensions. I also recall that that advice was dismissed as being unnecessary. I acknowledge that similar concern is emerging regarding the handling of mortgages, although I was not aware of the detail that my hon. Friend gave in his question. I will

certainly draw his concerns to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends who deal with these matters, who I know will take his suggestion very seriously.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the right hon. Lady tell us who will deliver the business statement next week? May I express the sentiment widely felt on the Conservative Benches that neither she nor her deputy, the Parliamentary Secretary, should be victims of the Prime Minister's bid or bin directive?

Mrs. Beckett: I think that the second half of that question was meant to be friendly; if so, I appreciate it. None of us gets too excited about such stories—the silly season seems to have started early. The Prime Minister has gone to some pains to make it plain that all these stories about his close and dear and near allies are certainly not based on any conversations or any knowledge of his.

Mr. Phil Hope: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, about three years ago, there was an outbreak of legionnaire's disease in my constituency. As a result, 21 people's health was badly affected and, tragically, one man died. Is she aware that, last week, the outbreak control team, which was responsible for dealing with that outbreak, published its report on the incident, which contains several important lessons for dealing with such outbreaks not only in Corby but throughout the country?
Will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate on the subject? This is not just a Corby issue; legionnaire's disease and its potential threat to people is a national problem. In my view, we do not yet have sufficient knowledge on how to prevent or control the disease. That issue deserves the full attention of the House.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I know that he has taken a close interest in the matter. The House will share the sympathy and concern that he expressed, particularly for the family of the person who died. I entirely share his view that those are serious matters, and the Government will study the inquiry's findings carefully. I cannot undertake to find time for a debate in the near future, although my hon. Friend may seek to raise the matter in one of our Adjournment debates or in the pre-recess debates. I can certainly undertake to draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who I know will share his concern that we learn, for others, the lessons of the tragedy that was experienced in his constituency.

Mr. Bercow: May I echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)? I very much hope that the right hon. Lady will deliver the business statement not only next week, but for a long time to come. She has undoubtedly discharged her obligations with great charm, style and dexterity. If I have not damned her with that, it is difficult to imagine what would do the job.
On a serious and non-partisan note, may I request an early debate in Government time on the state of the national health service. Is the right hon. Lady aware that two of my constituents, Caroline Cripps from Westcott and Marc Smith from Buckingham, have the misfortune to suffer from the relapsing-remitting form of multiple sclerosis, and that both are anxious to be reassured


urgently that they will be provided long into the future with the drug beta interferon? Does the Leader of the House accept that an early debate would afford hon. Members on both sides of the House an opportunity to express their concern that that drug should in future, in accordance with what we hope is sound guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, be ordinarily prescribed, where it is judged to be clinically appropriate?

Mrs. Beckett: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I know that he will understand when I say that I am not sure whether they will do me good or harm, but I appreciate them, as does the Parliamentary Secretary, on whose behalf I forgot to thank the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne).
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) raises an important issue, which as he says is non-partisan. He mentioned that NICE is considering the matter. I strongly share the view, as does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, that that is the right way to approach the issue. We have probably all had constituency cases that raised the matter and in which there is sometimes a dispute about whether that drug is clinically appropriate. I share entirely the hon. Gentleman's view that it is important for us to have sound advice in order to make good judgments on the matter, so that people can receive the care to which they are entitled under the NHS. I know that that view is shared by my right hon. Friend.
I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the issue in the near future, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I welcome the news that the Chairman of Ways and Means may name the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill for further consideration next week. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the special report that the Bill's Standing Committee presented to the House, which concluded that while the Bill should proceed, neither it nor the additional assurances provided for the petitioners entirely remedied the problems of governance of the City? Does my right hon. Friend agree that prior to such a debate on the Bill, sensible consideration of the conclusions of the special report by the City of London Corporation would be helpful?

Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend was one of those who served on the Committee, which did a good deal of careful and thoughtful work. It is a private Bill, and my hon. Friend will understand that it is a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means when such a Bill comes before the House. I know that the Committee's special report identifies a number of areas of further concern, but I believe that I am right in saying that at least some of them are outside the scope of the current Bill anyway, although it is generally accepted that they provide a useful framework for further discussion about the work of the City. There will be an opportunity to air those matters when the Bill is debated.

Dr. Lewis: May I endorse the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)

and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)? There are many on the Opposition Benches who appreciate the professional, competent and courteous way in which the right hon. Lady discharges her present duties. We are well aware of the way in which some members of the Labour party go about internal party business, and we sincerely hope that she does not suffer the fate of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who was subjected to a similar campaign.
On a lighter note, may we have a debate next week on the application of the Government's third way to the public services? Such a debate could obviously be opened by the Prime Minister and wound up by the Deputy Prime Minister—that is, if the Deputy Prime Minister has not wound up the Prime Minister too much already and if the Prime Minister is not too busy running scarred.

Mrs. Beckett: You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there was a Member of the House who made almost a profession of making the most dreadful puns. I hope that that did not act as a precedent. I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks; I am becoming slightly suspicious that they are a special means of trying to persuade me to give time for debates.
The hon. Gentleman proposes a debate on the third way in the public services. I am of course aware of the many press reports about what are supposed to be differences between the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, but all I can say to him is that I should like to use the precise words said by the Prime Minister's official spokesman about the quality of those stories. Although those words would be in keeping with the atmosphere in which we endeavour to conduct our exchanges, were I to use them I fear that I would be not only out of order, but thrown out of the Chamber for using unparliamentary language.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: A statutory instrument on ministerial pay is due to be considered in Committee next week. In view of the evident fact that so many of the right hon. Lady's colleagues are not up to their job, would not it be more appropriate for the amount that they are paid to be considered by the whole House?
On behalf of a constituent with a serious immigration problem, I have written three times in three months to the Home Office. In response to all those letters, I received two replies, both of which had the same reference number and the same date. Both were signed by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien). One said:
There is no trace of the receipt of an application from Mrs K".
The other said, on the same day:
Mrs K's application has been passed to a caseworker … who will make every effort to consider it as quickly as possible.
In view of the evident incompetence of some of the right hon. Lady's colleagues, may we please have a debate on the matter without delay?

Mrs. Beckett: First, I entirely reject the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that members of the Government are incompetent. One reason for our election was the visible incompetence of many of those who served in the previous Government.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is here, and he is prepared to assist the hon. Gentleman if he can, but it may not have occurred to him that it is often the practice


in Ministers' offices to date letters as they are sent out. I may be mistaken about that, but it is entirely possible that those letters were signed on different days and that the same date was put on them when they were put in envelopes.

Mr. Christopher Chope: May I ask the right hon. Lady what has happened to the electronic commerce Bill? Will she arrange time for a debate about the folly of regional development agency boundaries? They are being used increasingly by all Departments, but are resulting in extraordinary anomalies. For example, the new learning and skills councils will be set up on a sub-regional basis, which will mean that travel-to-work and travel-to-study areas in my constituency will be divided by an artificial regional boundary between the south-east and the south-west which bears no relationship to life on the ground.

Mrs. Beckett: On the e-commerce Bill, as the hon. Gentleman and the House are aware, discussions have been continuing on the matter and I anticipate that something will come forward in due course.
On boundaries, I think that I am right in saying that those matters have not been finally settled. However, I suspect that the Government would share some of the concern that the hon. Gentleman has expressed if it were not possible to achieve as much alignment as possible between boundaries. If he has not already done so, I suggest that he should take that up as a matter of urgency with the relevant Secretary of State.

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [Lords] Programme)

Ordered,

That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [Lords]—

Timetable

1. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be taken in the order specified in the Table and completed at today's sitting; and each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table.

Table

Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


New Clauses relating to Part I; amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 13, Schedule 1 and Clauses 14 and 15.
2½ hours after commencement of proceedings on this Order.


Any New Clauses relating to the making of orders under Clause 44(5) which may be selected: amendments relating to Clauses 44 to 48, Schedule 2 and Clauses 49 to 52.


4 hours after commencement of proceedings on this Order.


Remaining New Clauses; amendments relating to Clauses 16 to 43.
5½ hours after commencement of proceedings on this Order.


Amendments to Clauses 53 to 59, Schedule 3 and Clauses 60 to 63; New Schedules; amendments relating to Clauses 64 to 67, Schedules 4 to 7 and Clause 68: Third Reading.
6 hours after commencement of proceedings on this Order.

Questions to be put

2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.

(2) The Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown; and
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(3) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(4) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under sub-paragraph (2)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those Amendments or Motions.

Miscellaneous

3. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at today's sitting: and the proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House.

4. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to proceedings on the Bill.

5. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.

6. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to, or in the course of proceedings on, the Bill except by a Minister of the Crown; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.

7. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.

8. If at today's sitting a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (as that Standing Order has effect in accordance with the Order of the House [16th December 1998]) stands over to Four o'clock and proceedings on this Motion have begun before that time, the Motion for the Adjournment shall stand over until the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill.

9. If the House is adjourned at today's sitting, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Orders of the Day — Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [Lords]

As amended in the Committee, considered.

New Clause 1

REFERRAL OF YOUNG OFFENDERS TO YOUTH OFFENDER PANELS

'.—(1) This section applies where a youth court or other magistrates' court is dealing with a person under the age of 18 for an offence for which a custodial sentence is available and—

(a) neither the offence nor any associated offence is one for which the sentence is fixed by law;
(b) the court is not, in respect of the offence or any associated offence, proposing to impose a custodial sentence on the offender or make a hospital order in his case;
(c) the court is not proposing to impose a fine; and
(d) the court is not proposing to impose a conditional discharge.

(2) If the referral conditions are satisfied in accordance with subsection (3) and referral is available to the court, the court shall order the offender to be referred to a youth offender panel.

(3) The referral conditions are satisfied if the offender pleaded guilty to the offence or any associated offence and has never been convicted by or before a court in the United Kingdom of any offence other than the offence and any associated offence.

(4) For the purposes of this section referral is available to a court if—

(a) the court has been notified by the Secretary of State that arrangements for the implementation of referral orders are available in the area in which it appears to the court that the offender resides or will reside; and
(b) the notice has not been withdrawn.

(5) In this Part "referral order" means an order under subsection (2).

(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such amendments of this section as he considers appropriate for altering in any way the descriptions of offenders in the case of which the referral conditions fall to be satisfied for the purposes of subsection (3).

(7) Any description of offender having effect for those purposes by virtue of such regulations may be framed by reference to such matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, including (in particular) one or more of the following—

(a) the offender's age;
(b) how the offender has pleaded;
(c) the offence (or offences) of which the offender has been convicted;
(d) the offender's previous convictions (if any);
(e) how (if at all) the offender has been previously punished or otherwise dealt with by any court;
(f) any characteristics or behaviour of, or circumstances relating to, any person who has at any time been charged in the same proceedings as the offender (whether or not in respect of the same offence); and
(g) whether the offender has previously been subject to a referral order.

(8) For the purposes of this section an offender who has been convicted of an offence in respect of which he was conditionally discharged (whether by a court in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland) shall be treated, despite—



(a) section 1C(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 (conviction of offence for which offender so discharged deemed not a conviction), or
(b) Article 6(1) of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (corresponding provision for Northern Ireland),

as having been convicted of that offence'.—[Mr. Greenway.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Greenway: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out Clauses 1 and 2.
No. 12, in page 1, line 16, at end insert—
'(d) the court is not proposing to impose a conditional discharge.'.

Mr. Greenway: Part I introduces a new sentence for young offenders of referral to a youth offender panel. Panels will be established by the youth offender teams which owe their existence to the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The purpose of the panel is to draw up a programme of reparation, rehabilitation and, where appropriate, reintegration, aimed at addressing the young person's offending behaviour with a view to preventing him or her from reoffending in future.
I am glad to see the Home Secretary here. We support the concept of the referral order and believe that, properly resourced and constituted, youth offender panels have the potential to provide a more structured and coherent programme of support and reparation for a young offender than has been the usual experience with the generality of community sentences.
In Committee we highlighted some important elements where we have some disagreement with the Government about the way in which the new sentencing option is being introduced. New clause 1 offers a better framework and structure for the introduction of this important initiative, the genesis for which lies in much of the work of the last Government and taken forward by this Government, than the Government scheme. In addition and so that we can get the maximum out of this afternoon's debate, new clause 1 addresses all the important elements that were debated in Committee on which there was some disagreement.
The first concern that we addressed was whether this new option should be available only in youth and magistrates courts. We probed the Government to find out why the referral order was not apparently available to the Crown courts. The Government's view is that the number of occasions when a young offender might be dealt with by a Crown court in the circumstances which would allow or might require a referral order are sufficiently few to leave it to the magistrates or youth court to make the referral. A Crown court can send a young offender back to a youth court for that purpose, as required. Although we still believe that this is an unnecessary complication, it is not a key issue for us, so new clause 1 incorporates in the first line the same wording as in the Government scheme, restricting the power to youth and magistrates courts. We are happy to accept and reflect the Government's view on that.
Our most fundamental disagreement remains with the Government's insistence that the referral order should be mandatory, certainly in the first instance, for a first time offender who pleads guilty. We shall come on to the plea of guilty aspect later. We think that it is a mistake for the referral order to be mandatory.
The House will be aware that in another place the mandatory nature of the referral order was changed to provide the court with discretion. In Committee that change was reversed to reinstate the mandatory nature of the referral order. We find it slightly surprising that in the other place Liberal Democrat Members supported the amendment of my noble Friend Lord Windlesham whereas in Committee the Liberal Democrat Member voted against his noble Friends and in support of the Government. We note with some enthusiasm that as in Committee when the Liberal Democrats tabled one amendment, so on Report they have tabled one amendment. As will be clear from new clause 1 we agree that the availability of a conditional discharge to the court in the circumstances would be welcome.
We remain of the view that to make the referral mandatory for first time young offenders is a mistake because these are not the group of offenders for whom mandatory sentences should be thought appropriate. Notwithstanding the fact that these are pilot arrangements, so are capable of adaptation and adjustment in the light of experience, we envisage that a court will frequently have to make a referral order against its better judgment. In all sincerity I suggest to the Home Secretary that that has the prospect of undermining confidence in the scheme. To allow the court virtually no discretion for first-time offenders is bad law and will lead to rough justice and inconsistency.
Even if one accepts the principle of a mandatory referral order, it is questionable whether the conditions which trigger an automatic referral are the right ones or whether they require further thought and adjustment. The key purpose of new clause 1 is to suggest to the Government why we believe that those conditions need some changes in a number of respects. The changes that we think would be appropriate are set out in the new clause.
2.15 pm
First and in many respects most importantly, we need to question the range of offences which a young offender may have committed which would justify a mandatory requirement for the young person to work with a youth offender panel to address his offending behaviour and make reparation. As drafted, the Bill regards any offence as deserving such treatment. I do not know whether the Home Secretary has had time to study the Hansard reports of the Committee which was good natured. Although we had some disagreements it was not one of those Committees where we fought to the wire on many issues. When I pointed out that some offences were less serious and sufficiently minor not to justify a referral, I was asked to suggest one. I outlined the case of a 17-year-old motorist, perhaps about to go to university, of previous good character who drove through a red traffic light or was caught speeding. In a number of circumstances such a young motorist, like any other motorist stopped by the police and told of his transgression, might be given a fixed penalty ticket.
The Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), has recently expressed concern about a particularly prevalent minor offence that youngsters are wont to commit, which is cycling on the pavement. I must confess that that offence did not cross my mind. Yesterday, the Minister tabled a statutory instrument, which provides for an on-the-spot fine or fixed penalty notice for the offence of cycling on the footway contrary to section 72 of the Highway Act 1835.
The Minister and the House will know from early-day motion 766 that not all his hon. Friends—indeed, not all of mine either—consider cycling on the pavement to be a punishable offence, let alone punishable with on-the-spot fines. There are as many as 27 signatures to that early-day motion. If we pray against that statutory instrument and there is a vote on it, it will be interesting to see how many of the Minister's hon. Friends vote against it and in support of that early-day motion.
This is good-natured banter, but cycling on the pavement is illegal, and can be dangerous. In response to my suggestion that someone going through a red traffic light should be considered a danger to the rest of society, the Minister said that he could introduce me to the parents of children who had been maimed as a result of such behaviour. I fully accept that, but the House should also reflect on the fact that there is an equal prospect of some young tearaway who cycles on the pavement posing a similar danger. Although some people approve of cycling on the pavement as it is safer for the cyclist, given the state of the traffic on the roads, it can be dangerous for the people on the pavement. I have no qualms about the Minister's intention to give the police an additional power to take action if they think it is required.
Whether the offence is going through a red traffic light, speeding or cycling on the pavement, as the Bill is construed a young offender will pay a fine if the police choose to give him a fixed penalty notice, whereas another offender who commits an identical offence will be summoned to appear in court, whereupon, having pleaded guilty, the magistrate will, under the Bill, have no option but to refer him to a youth offender panel.
To use the expression that an enraged mother in a queue at a passport office used when talking to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) last week, that is completely barmy. How could anyone explain the logic of the system to a young person whose mate gets an on-the-spot fine, whereas for exactly the same offence he is referred for three months to a youth offender panel?
In fairness, under the Bill the court has an alternative: it could grant an absolute discharge. Some magistrates may be persuaded that that is a preferable option. Either way, it will lead to inconsistency in the sentencing of young people. Inconsistency in the administration of justice to young people is, in my experience, the harbinger of grievance, and the harbinger of grievance is the parent of alienation. That is the opposite of what the Government are sensibly trying to do in the Bill, which is to bring young people up short when they have offended. The sentence that they are given for their offence must be appropriate in the circumstances and relevant to their situation.

Mr. Tim Boswell: I am following my hon. Friend's argument with some interest, because this is not

a matter in which I have participated closely in the past. Does he agree that, if persons who have committed the same offence are given different punishments, that could give rise to a potentially objectionable situation under the European convention on human rights?

Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We debated this issue at some length in Committee. I can only pass on to him the Government's reassurance, which, in all fairness, we are happy to accept, that the Bill complies with all elements of the European convention on human rights. He is right: people have in the past sought redress in the European Court if our law has created an injustice which our courts are unable to address. They will be able to go to our courts when the human rights legislation that the House has passed is fully implemented.
I do not want to labour the point, except to say that it is extraordinary for the Government to expect the House to understand and agree with a sentence for a misdemeanour—not a high crime or serious offence—which will depend on how the young offender is prosecuted. In most cases, the police will not have the slightest idea of the young person's background and whether he is a known troublemaker or has never been in any trouble before.
It is ludicrous to propose that if a young person gets a fixed penalty notice, he must pay an on-the-spot fine, but if, for the same offence, he is required to appear in court, he must be referred to a youth offender panel to address his offending behaviour.
In new clause 1, we provide two entirely sensible solutions. The first is to establish which offences should trigger an automatic referral to a youth offender panel, and which offences could be regarded as less serious. As I said to the Home Secretary, we agree with this disposal. He will remember that, in the debate on Second Reading, I told him that I had visited Boston, Massachusetts with the Select Committee on Home Affairs. The Committee looked into the imaginative way in which they deal with young offenders in Boston, and it was then that I first understood the power and good sense of subjecting young delinquents to a structured programme of reparation and rehabilitation. We are fully on side in that objective. However, if we have to accept, given the Government's majority, that the referral will change back from a discretionary to a mandatory requirement, we have a right and a responsibility to ask the Home Secretary to think again about what offences will justify a mandatory referral.
2.30 pm
We think that the Government's policy is really about dealing with offences that are dishonest, violent or involve other criminal conduct. That is why, in line two of new clause 1, we introduce the phrase
an offence for which a custodial sentence is available".
The aim is not just to highlight the need for offences to be serious, but to indicate clearly that the breadth of criminal activity, of vandalism and of violence, which we know that the Government are seeking to address, would carry the option of a custodial sentence. There would be an automatic referral to a youth offender panel where a young offender pleaded guilty on his first appearance in court.
In Committee, we debated the issue of seriousness in some detail. The theft of a pint of a milk was an offence that the Committee thought serious enough to warrant a referral order. Such an offence would be covered. That does not have to mean that someone who admits in his first appearance in court to theft of anything will automatically get a prison sentence, but the offence to which that person has pleaded guilty, including theft of a pint of milk, would carry a prison sentence as an option, so it would be covered, as would malicious damage, vandalism and any assault.
The petty crime that concerns local communities and characterises the behaviour of youngsters who are out of control and need their offending behaviour addressed would therefore be covered by the alternative proposal. However, serious motoring offences would also be covered. A 17-year-old driving under the influence of drugs or drink, or causing death by dangerous driving, would come within the category where a custodial sentence is an option.
No one—I agree with the spirit of what the Minister of State was saying in Committee—could possibly argue that a young person who had pleaded guilty to such a serious offence would not be in need of a programme of rehabilitation, reparation and remedial action to address his offending behaviour, but our proposal would also leave courts free to continue to dispose of less serious summary offences, which I have already described as misdemeanours, with a fine, or courts could impose a conditional discharge.
Nevertheless, it is not our intention that the restriction of offences for which a referral order is encouraged for the more serious crimes and the imposition of a fine or conditional discharge should be regarded as exclusive alternatives. Both have their place in a sensible sentencing strategy. Even if the offence involved criminality, there would be occasions where the option of a fine or conditional discharge would be an important discretion for the court to have at its disposal.
What if, for example, a 16 or 17-year-old, perhaps out with his girlfriend and not looking for trouble, is attacked by other youngsters and, in defending himself, assaults his assailants or causes damage? He may have had no intention to do so, but the action is likely to be considered reckless by the court. It happens. I am glad to note that the Home Secretary agrees.
It would be ludicrous to say in such circumstances that there is no option but to refer that person to a youth offender panel and to argue that that would be the most appropriate outcome. Clearly, it would not. The court must have the discretion to impose an alternative. A fine, or, indeed, in those circumstances, a conditional discharge, which is far more powerful than the absolute discharge, which is the only thing available under the Government's proposals, would be more appropriate.
More important, to have such a restricted sentencing option would lead to the criminal justice system being brought into disrepute. The failure of the Government's proposals to provide for such a sensible outcome will affect the way in which youth and magistrates courts deal with young people. That will lead to the sort of controversy and anger that we saw in response to some of the proposals in the Criminal Justice Act 1991. In Committee, we commented on that point.
On previous occasions, the Home Secretary has described me as an old lag because of all the long service I have done in various criminal justice Bill Standing Committees. In the Committee that considered the 1991 Act, several of us had some misgivings about unit fines, but I say in all sincerity that he is going down the same road with the current proposal. He is producing an inflexible structure that will lead to anger and controversy. Our worry is that what is a sensible initiative will be brought into disrepute even during the early years of the pilot schemes because of that inflexibility. The Government must think again.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: I ask the hon. Gentleman, in all sincerity, to consider whether he has missed the crucial point about the provision: it is about restorative justice, introducing meaning to the process involving young people and tackling issues at the crucial moment of that first appearance in court.

Mr. Greenway: If I take on board what the hon. Gentleman has said, perhaps he will have an argument with the Minister of State. We heard all that claptrap in Committee. We are not missing the point at all. We are fully seized of the point. We are saying that the referral order must be appropriate to the young person in question.
The Government are introducing a scheme where some referral orders will be wholly inappropriate. Perhaps the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) was not listening, but what could be more inappropriate than to say to one young offender, "You have been cycling on the footway. Here is a fine," and to say to another, "By the way, because we did not catch you, but we know who you are, you have been summoned to the court, you will go to court and plead guilty"? The Home Secretary must accept that, under the Bill, the court would have no option but to refer that person to a youth offender panel.
I cannot for the life of me see the logic of such a situation. Where is the reparation? Where is the reintegration into society in those circumstances? It is complete nonsense to have such a conflict between two alternative disposals for precisely the same offence, depending entirely on how the young person is prosecuted. We have made our point. I can tell from the noises behind me and the nods that I see when I look around from time to time that, thankfully, some hon. Members in the Chamber agree with me.
Two other aspects of new clause 1 differ from the Government's structure. If we accept the logic of the mandatory referral for a plea of guilty, it will be hard to see the logic of giving the court any discretion if a young person pleads guilty to one offence, but not guilty to another. The Home Secretary will remember that, on Second Reading, we expressed the concern that, perversely, youngsters might be tempted to plead not guilty to avoid the youth offender panel. Bearing in mind that our proposal would restrict the referral order to more serious offences and provide the option for a fine, we think it would probably be more straightforward if the referral order were mandatory for all pleas of guilty.
The Government's case is that a guilty plea is essential to the young offender being prepared to accept that he has done wrong. If he has pleaded guilty to one offence, even if he has pleaded not guilty to another, that is an admission of guilt for the youth offender panel to work on.
The new clause incorporates all the powers that the Home Secretary thinks appropriate to extend the provisions of the referral order to other offenders. On Second Reading and in Committee, we certainly supported the concept of making referral orders appropriate and available for dealing with more persistent offenders. However, we should have preferred that persistent young offenders were brought within the scheme's provisions immediately.
If and when other than first-time offenders are brought within the scheme's provisions, we think that courts must have regard to whether such youngsters have previously been subject to a referral order. As we debated and agreed in Committee, the Government's wording technically provides for that. Nevertheless, we still feel that a requirement to have regard to whether a young offender has previously been subject to a young offender order is sufficiently important to be included in the Bill.
Although we support the idea of referral orders to youth offender panels, we disagree with the conditions in which courts will be able to pass such a sentence. The provisions are riddled with illogicality. The argument that the provisions are a completely new and radical approach to dealing with first-time young offenders does not justify the blanket provision, in every case, of referral orders. Therefore, I ask the House to support new clause 1.

Mr. Dawson: It is with regret that I disagree with the comments of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), as I fully realise that, throughout our consideration of the Bill, he has pursued his case with sincerity, great knowledge and experience. Nevertheless, I think that he has totally missed the point on the radical nature of the proposals—which are not at all intended to reflect a youth justice system that has become discredited among not only young people but those who have felt its inadequacies, whether as victims or those who work within that system. The Bill offers an approach that is absolutely trying to deal with young people at the crucial moment—when they first appear in court.
Far from being inflexible, the approach offers the supreme flexibility of providing young people with an opportunity, over a significant period of between three and 12 months, to sit with a panel that would include their parents, representatives from various agencies, people from the community and possibly victims of their offences; to use that opportunity to be confronted with the reality of their offending; and to have the underlying and overt reasons for their offending uncovered, analysed and challenged. They would also have the opportunity to make reparation to an individual victim or, perhaps more likely, to the wider community.
The Bill offers a wholly different approach from the current one, in which, very perfunctorily, young people appear in court under the influence of various messages about what the experience is supposed to be about. They endure an occasion in court that is probably meaningless for them: get the whole thing done, dusted and out of the way as quickly as possible; and then go on.
2.45 pm
In Committee, the hon. Member for Ryedale raised the issue of young people who are apprehended for going

through a red traffic light. I told him then, and I tell him now, that I could today put together a programme for a young person who had been convicted of such an offence—which is a very serious one indeed—involving the auspices of other groups in the community, that would shake that young person to the core about what happens when one speeds in a motorcar. Does anyone think that that is less worthwhile than a young person appearing in court and receiving a fine that may be paid by his or her parents?

Lorna Fitzsimons: Is my hon. Friend aware of a cutting-edge young offenders programme that is being operated at Buckley Hall prison by the prisoners themselves? The programme—which is receiving accreditation—is being operated just as my hon. Friend has described, by talking about people who have thrown away their lives by using cars to do things that they have come to regret. Additionally, the programme is thought to be so worthwhile that the people behind it are giving presentations to magistrates across the north-west region.

Mr. Dawson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Although I am not aware of that project, it is a perfect example of what I am talking about—a programme devised by those who have been through experiences that have meaning for offenders and to which offenders are able to respond.
I regret to say that the out-of-date approach to youth justice being advocated by the Opposition threatens to undermine the Bill's entire purpose. If we were to allow crucial get-outs, such as opportunities for young people to be dealt with in a conditional discharge and a fine, we should miss the crucially important moment—the first appearance in court—and that crucial chance to influence behaviour at that level.
As one who worked in the youth justice system for some years, I tell the hon. Member for Ryedale that one of the system's greatest failings was that, in far too many cases, by the time we got to the young people for whom we were trying to develop programmes as alternatives to custodial sentences—they had all the cautions, court appearances, fines, conditional discharges, and attendance and supervision orders behind them—they were lost to us. The moment had gone.
The Bill creates the opportunity to use the crucial moment. It brings a radical approach to justice that is meaningful to the young person and to the community, restores to the community what it has lost to offending, and gives young people an opportunity to move on and face what they have done. The approach is novel, and it builds on good experience from around the world. It is what we need in the new youth justice system, and I hope that all hon. Members will wholeheartedly support it.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Liberal Democrat Members strongly support the creation of youth offender panels, which are based on experience from not only around the world, but across the border. Some elements of Scotland's children's panels and children's hearings, which have worked well in Scotland, have been incorporated in the proposed process. We hope that the panels will provide the basis of a new approach to youth offending, and offer a more constructive response to young offenders that is based on examining the causes and consequences of their behaviour.
We also hope that the proposals will inspire a bit more confidence in victims that the young people concerned are being confronted with the consequences of their actions. We often forget how, often, victims feel that current court procedures offer absolutely nothing to them, leaving them feeling as if they would just like to get hold of the person who perpetrated the crime and give them a good talking to about what it means to be a victim and the adverse effects of their crime.
Our amendment No. 12, which is in this group, is a modest amendment that would introduce a little more flexibility to the system created by the Bill. The court will not currently have to refer first-time offenders who plead guilty to a youth offender panel if it is proposing to impose a custodial sentence or an unconditional discharge—decisions that fall at opposite ends of the scale. If neither course of action is proposed, referral to a youth offender panel will be required. The amendment would give the court the further option of a conditional discharge.
We support the Government's view that when the conditions are met, referral to a youth offender panel should be mandatory. For the new system of youth justice to be proved effective, it needs to be widely used. In the Scottish system, if guilt is accepted the children's hearing is automatic. We agree that that principle should apply. Over time we want it to be broadened beyond first-time offenders. As we gain more experience, we would like the provision to be available for a wider range of offenders.
However, we believe that giving magistrates complete discretion—which we normally favour—runs the risk of limiting the effect of that useful development in youth justice at a time when it needs to be given a fair, broad trial over a lot of cases. There is a strong case for allowing the court an extra option before the referral becomes automatic. Unless the Government accept the amendment, they will effectively abolish the conditional discharge for first-time offenders who plead guilty. They may be the most likely to respond to a conditional discharge. In some cases it would be the most effective response to the crime and it would not be sensible to drain the limited resources of the youth offender panels, so there is merit in a modicum of additional discretion.
At the moment, absolute discharge is rarely used compared with conditional discharge. Courts can impose a condition of non-offending behaviour for a year or more, so we think that it would be a useful way of avoiding clogging the new youth offender panels with minor offenders.
The Government's objection to similar amendments in this House and the other place seems to have been that they do not like conditional discharges because they send the wrong message. Are they saying that they no longer see any use in conditional discharges for first-time young offenders who plead guilty? Are they saying that they are no use for young offenders? Are they sure that the new youth offender panels will have the resources to deal with all who may currently receive a conditional discharge?
Our proposal has gained considerable support since it was first put forward in the other place by my noble Friend Lord Dholakia. It was proposed in the Standing Committee with the support of the three Opposition parties represented there.
The Conservative new clause on the new power of referral to a youth offender panel has been explained to us exhaustively. The aim of the new clause is to rewrite

the relevant clauses in the Bill. It would meet our request by allowing conditional discharge as an option. It would also go further by allowing a fine. We understand that argument, but we do not think that the Government will be persuaded of it. Our concern about the new clause is that it would limit the use of referral to only those first-time offenders who plead guilty to an offence for which a custodial sentence is available. We are not convinced that referrals should be limited in that way. The new system of youth offender panels could respond effectively to offences for which there is no custodial sentence available. We prefer the Government's wording. The panel's contracts will be a new form of community sentence. Although the new clause has other merits, it imposes too great a restriction and we do not support it.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am glad to play a small part at this stage. The new clause gives us another opportunity to think about a sensible part of the Bill that has a flaw.
Referral orders are an idea whose time has come. I congratulate the Government—I did not take part on Second Reading—on picking up those ideas and running with them. I went to see Charles Pollard and his practical efforts in Aylesbury before the election, and very impressive they were. I sat at the back of the room and watched a meeting at which parents, young offenders and victims were present and the whole issue was talked through. It was superbly managed by a young woman police officer. Clause 1 or the new clause would implement that. The fundamental difference between clause 1 and the new clause is that the new clause would give more flexibility. There is a case for more flexibility.
This is the point at which one becomes a little frustrated about coming in late to take part in the parliamentary minuet. The Home Secretary should have accepted the Lords amendment to introduce the word "may" instead of "shall". I apologise to him for not having heard his reasons for throwing it out.
I sit as a recorder. I listen to the gossip at lunch and go to the many training sessions that the Lord Chancellor rightly requires recorders to attend. We rightly required them to attend such sessions when we were in government. Complaints consistently come from experienced judges—Lord Justices, recorders and assistant recorders with huge experience and Crown court judges with the widest experience of all—about Parliament setting a provision in stone or steel and requiring them to operate it. They are willing and anxious to operate it, but they have to see the individual circumstances. They may say, "Look, this is basically a very good idea, but in this particular example it is damned silly and it will waste the referral committee's time."
My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) was right to draw attention to a mistake that we made in government. This Government have been in power for such a short time that they have not made any mistakes, but that may change. I know that irony is the most dangerous political weapon, because when people read comments they tend to take them at face value. It could come out over the airwaves that the former Attorney-General has said that the Government have made no mistakes and it would be quoted back to me. We made a mistake with unit fines. There was some merit in the idea, but it was barmy. I was Solicitor-General when the policy was slipping through. It shows how little we


know of what goes on in other Departments. I confess—in Latin if necessary—that the unit fines system slipped through and it was intolerable.
I have far too much respect for the Home Secretary to want to see him make a similar mistake. It would not be as bad, because the worst consequence would probably be to waste the time of referral committees. That is a pity, because they need to be labour-intensive. That is why I commend them so strongly. We have to spend a great deal of time on youth justice, particularly with people in the early stages of offending. Time, effort and expertise are well used at that stage in a person's career of potential wrongdoing.
3 pm
A resource, such as those committees, should not have its time wasted, and the elaborations of the court should not be made necessary by inflexibility in the structure of the Act, as it will be. That is why I support the new clause. I do so honestly, although I do not think that the new clause is the perfect answer as it also uses the word "shall". However, it gives more options before we reach compulsory referral.
There is little opportunity left for the Home Secretary, as we are getting to Third Reading today. However, I beg him to try to find a way to allow the court honest flexibility. He may say that there is a certain flexibility because courts can always impose a fine.

Mr. Greenway: That is the whole point—the courts cannot impose a fine. However, there will be an opportunity for the Home Secretary to think again. If he gets his way, and neither the new clause nor the Liberal Democrat amendment is accepted, the Bill will go back to the other place with the measure reversed. The Home Secretary's noble colleagues will then have to explain why.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. We need to get back to the sensible position suggested by their Lordships in a thoroughly constructive amendment to this otherwise thoroughly sensible proposal by the Government. Our suggestion—that a fine or conditional discharge would provide more flexibility—is a second-best, but a useful second-best. I ask the House to think seriously about supporting the new clause.
The Home Secretary must not think it necessary to force these referral committees to take every case. They will be extremely enthusiastic to take up the right kind of case, and they will need no forcing. I have long experience of working with magistrates at every level, publicly and privately, and my impression is that they cry out for new measures, which they welcome with open arms when they are flexible. They will welcome the proposal with open arms, but it would be much more useful to them if the flexibility that was wisely proposed by the Lords—it is not a slap in the face for the Government, but a sensible suggestion—could be restored.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). I have every

sympathy for the Bill, and this part in particular, but I agree with the thrust of the new clause. The basic problem that we have faced—it was raised time and again in Committee—is the inflexibility of this clause. I hope that Labour Members will not say that I have misunderstood it. I have 25 years' experience as an advocate, and I have a limited ability to understand legislation.
The new approach is, of course, welcome, and it gives an opportunity to avoid criminalising a young person who may, early on, be put back on the rails. It is a good investment of time and resources. For every reason, it is a good idea. However, I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire on the question of flexibility, which is the key issue.
Before I address that matter, there are one or two points about new clause 1 that I cannot quite accept, such as the precondition that a custodial sentence must be available. Many serious offences do not carry a custodial sentence, and that is a slight concern.
The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has worked extremely hard on this Bill, but I disagree with one of his points in relation to people electing trial to the Crown court. With some judges that I know—present company excepted—one would be better advised not to do that. One could end up with a right old tanning in some of the places where I used to practise.
I agree that bringing in the conditional discharge—referred to by both the hon. Member for Ryedale and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—is a proper and sensible approach. The inflexibility of the mandatory approach is most unfortunate.
I plead guilty to having introduced the subject of the milk bottle into the Committee's deliberations. I was probably subliminally concerned about the dairy industry. However, I ask the House to consider this example. At a temporary traffic light system where one can see from one end to the other, a young person sees that nothing is coming and drives through. He should not have done it—we all know that. That offence is not endorsable. However, under the Bill, that young person might well have to spend 12 months in a multidisciplinary panel approach because of that one transgression, which is not even endorsable. I am sure that there are many other examples. I am not trying to clever—I am making a point about the inflexibility of the Government's mandatory approach.
There are huge resource implications. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) may disagree. No doubt he will say that I have misunderstood the matter. I agree with the thrust of the Bill, and I am not arguing about the theory behind it or the practice of it. However, I am saying that it will not be appropriate for all offences.

Mr. Dawson: I believe sincerely that the hon. Gentleman is missing the point. This not a 12-month sentence to anything. This is an opportunity for a panel to be almost infinitely flexible and to address that young person's behaviour in a variety of ways.

Mr. Llwyd: What variety of ways are needed over a period of between three and 12 months to address the offending behaviour to which I referred? What possible


expert or authority could be involved? What can be done with that type of person? These are just words. With respect, that is a complete nonsense.

Ms Beverley Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in the example he has given, that young person has demonstrated a serious miscalculation of risk to himself or herself and to others, and that while nothing untoward may have occurred on that occasion, it is an important moment to get that young person to address that risk-taking to ensure that it does not escalate?

Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Lady makes a good point, forcefully. I accept what she says in that instance, and the point has been made. She has a valid point, and I do not profess to have the monopoly of wisdom.
My main concern is the mandatory form—the inflexibility. There are two main ways of making bad law. One is to rush it and to repent at leisure. The second is to introduce something that is inflexible. One of the worst-ever pieces of legislation passed by this House concerned the Child Support Agency, and we are still grappling with it. That was so inflexible, it did not work.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire referred to the unit fines system. I was in daily practice at that time, and the number of injustices that poured out of magistrates courts, day in, day out, was an absolute disgrace. That was again because of inflexibility. The poll tax is another example. I note that the Home Secretary is laughing loudly. I am pleased that he is enjoying himself.
I fully endorse the drift of the provision and agree with the new penalty, which will help young people in many cases; but there will be huge resource implications. Perhaps the Home Secretary does not realise how much it will cost. In some parts of north Wales and Merseyside it already takes up to six or seven weeks to get a probation report. The system will be clogged up with new referrals. I hope that the resources and expertise will be in place. I wish the system well but I foresee problems arising from its mandatory nature.

Mr. Boswell: I gather that the Home Secretary or the Minister of State described my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) as an old lag in these matters. I plead guilty to being a first offender. It is not an area in which I spend much time. I have spent a great deal of time on other legislation, from the safest of all possible positions, as a lay legislator, not a legally qualified one.
I am very much in sympathy with what my hon. Friend and others have said today, above all about the need for flexibility. I want to cite an example from completely outwith the Home Office. Recent protracted experience of the national minimum wage legislation encouraged us, in Committee, despite our opposition to the principle, to offer the Government the opportunity for flexibility in the drafting, giving them what one might loosely call a get-out clause: if something had been overlooked or got wrong, it would be possible to amend it to take account of the particular circumstances of a case.
Almost immediately, such an opportunity arose in respect of au pairs. The legislation was unsatisfactory, as it would have brought to an end the ability of the majority of the people who employ au pairs to continue to do so.

The Government had to strain legal language to the uttermost to get round inflexible legislation that was set in stone, redefining not the workers who were excluded but the work, in a way that I, as a lay person, find legally implausible.
I suspect that it would have been easier to sustain the concept behind unit fines, which is not a bad one, had magistrates been able to vary their operation when they deemed that appropriate in the interests of justice or in the light of all the circumstances of a case.
3.15 pm
We have here a piece of machinery conceived for the best possible reasons, which I support in general—I have no argument with the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on that—but if we say that we must tie it down in every single case because we cannot trust those who operate it to make a judgment, we start giving rise to trouble.
If one is buying into the European convention, it is important that any punishment should be appropriate to the circumstances, not disproportionate. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) cited the example of someone driving through a red light wrongly but not endorsably. It is not at all clear that the procedure would be appropriate in that case. I am not saying that the Home Secretary would not win in court if there were a challenge, but he would have to go to court to prove the point, which is unfortunate.
I am much more concerned with the lay sanctions in two respects. One of the Government's characteristics is a careful following of the tabloid press. If we say that referral to a youth offender panel must take place in all cases, a case is bound to arise in which it is darn silly to do it. The magistrates and the Home Secretary will be unable to do anything about it and it will appear in the press in a way that discredits the system. The press will ask how any sensible group of legislators could get themselves into such a situation.
The second area of discredit, which I find equally disturbing, concerns the young offenders themselves. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy was absolutely right to ask what the panel would offer a young person in the circumstances that he described. We are talking not about a pattern of offending leading to a first appearance in court—I am at one with the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre in that respect—but about a person who has behaved in a stupid and irresponsible way once.
The very fact that the person has been apprehended, resulting eventually in a court appearance, is probably sufficient in itself. Going through the elaborate rigmarole of a youth offender panel may well not meet the case. It might in some cases; that is not the issue. The issue is whether there should be discretion to waive the process when appropriate.
The provisions sit extremely ill with legislation that the Home Office introduced only yesterday in relation to spot fines. In that case, the police officer will have discretion: he may or may not decide to proceed. We are saying that police officers can have flexibility and discretion, but magistrates cannot.
If the system is set up to allow a silly result, there has to be a safety valve at the end of the case. I predict what the safety valve will be: the case will be referred to the


youth offender panel, with much cost and complication; the panel will meet and it will come up with what I will frankly call a Noddy solution—one that does not address the one—off offence, but is a fiction. That adds a further element of discredit, because it takes the emphasis away from the experience of cases in which the new system is applied sensibly and appropriately and puts it on cases in which the system should never have been considered.
It is the sign of a mature Government not to say that they do not trust those who take decisions in the courts based on the legislation that they have passed. We should offer some flexibility. As a constituency Member who is concerned about young people, I have no problem with the concept of the system, but I am concerned that it may be discredited by being applied inappropriately and in a way that will attract opprobrium and hole it below the water line, when in fact we want it to succeed.

Mr. James Clappison: I begin with an apology to the House and to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), as a constituency matter meant that I missed the beginning of his remarks. However, I caught the flavour of them at the end, and his sensible points about the need for flexibility have been adopted in subsequent contributions. I also wish to declare that I am a member of the Bar.
Ministers must listen carefully to the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale and by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) in favour of more flexibility. Labour Members have made some good contributions to the debate, but they are making slightly heavy weather of the issues.
There is no need to go over the arguments about restorative justice and referral to youth panels, as there is wide agreement in the House on them. What my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale said in support of the new clause did not contradict the general principle of restorative justice, and it cannot be said that the need for restorative justice disposes of the new clause as the administration of restorative justice requires flexibility.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy practised for 25 years in youth courts and has much greater experience than either I or the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). However, the Government must consider very carefully the arguments of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy about flexibility—which I shall turn to in a moment—and about the availability of referral to a youth offender panel in cases where a custodial sentence is not available.
The Bill restricts referral to cases punishable with imprisonment. That is one of the conditions. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy asked about those offences that are not punishable with imprisonment but which magistrates think might be dealt with appropriately by referral to a young offender panel. That is an important question, but the Minister of State looks puzzled.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): It is a Conservative new clause.

Mr. Clappison: That just shows how important flexibility is.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale made another important point in favour of flexibility when he said that magistrates will decide such cases. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre said in an intervention that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy did not get the point because the youth offender panel could administer justice in a wide variety of ways and that it had a lot of flexibility.
I see that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre agrees that that was his point, but magistrates will know the youth offender panel's capabilities and they may think that a more appropriate way to deal with a case is by means of conditional discharge or a fine.

Mr. Dawson: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that the youth offender panel will be able to discuss such matters in depth and to examine a range of different ways to deal with offending behaviour and the underlying problems that become evident? The panel will be able to make decisions on the basis of knowledge that simply is not available to a youth court.

Mr. Clappison: I appreciate that, but such decisions come after magistrates have heard the facts of a case and representations from both sides. One of the conditions for referral is that the court does not intend to impose a custodial sentence. After hearing the facts of a case, the court therefore will have to consider whether to impose a custodial sentence. That is a very important question. The hon. Gentleman's experience will tell him that the courts will want to think carefully about that. They will want to avoid imposing a custodial sentence if to do so would be unduly harsh, but they will also want to be certain that a case is not so serious that a custodial sentence is justified. The magistrates will also know what is available under a youth offender panel and might conclude that a case is best dealt with by means of conditional discharge or a fine.
It has been suggested that this rather modest new clause will undermine the edifice of restorative justice, but that is not the intention. It would give flexibility and discretion to the courts, and we should trust the magistrates.
I share the very high opinion of lay magistrates expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). Lay magistrates are very conscientious and perform an important function, and Ministers would do well to take on board what my right hon. and learned Friend said. He performed an elegant parliamentary minuet and handed a bouquet to Ministers when he commended the ideas of restorative justice and of referral to youth offender panels. Bouquets, as opposed to brickbats, are not often given to Governments by Oppositions—it certainly did not happen much before May 1997. Ministers must now think about the desirability of flexibility.
A warning should be taken from the recent past. I was not in the House when the Criminal Justice Act 1990 was passed—although I was a Conservative supporter then—so I have no expert knowledge about whether the Labour Opposition at the time were especially astute when it came to uncovering the inadequacies of that measure. I see the Minister of State smiling in a puzzled way, but we still use the framework of the 1990 Act for sentencing in criminal courts. In their amended form, the provisions have proved durable and I am not aware of any clamour for their repeal.
Before the 1990 Act was amended to take account of problems with unit costs and courts' inability to take previous convictions into account, it gave rise to great concerns among practitioners, who shared their unease with Members of Parliament at constituency surgeries. The Act was subsequently amended to render it more sensible and flexible. Ministers must listen to what has been said about flexibility and avoid tying the hands of the courts. Magistrates and judges dislike nothing more than being forced by law to take a certain course when the facts of the case suggest that a different course would be appropriate.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Another aspect of flexibility is worth mentioning. Has my hon. Friend noticed that the new clause also gives the Home Secretary flexibility to widen slightly the ambit of referral, which need not apply solely to the absolute first-time offender? I fully understand the Home Office's anxiety not to have too many such referrals, but does my hon. Friend agree that the provisions of the new clause would be valuable in many cases involving young people under 18 who are not absolutely first-time offenders? Would not the Home Secretary be wise to consider that aspect of the new clause as well?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention has gone on too long.

Mr. Clappison: My right hon. and learned Friend sensibly pressed the point that we should leave it to the courts to choose horses for courses. If they are dealing with a young person, perhaps one with a previous conviction, they should have the flexibility to deal with that person as they see fit.
I prefer to trust the courts with a measure of discretion within a sound legislative framework. The courts should have available all the powers that they need, and it should be up to them to use them as they wish. We do not know the facts of individual cases, but magistrates hear the facts and the representations. Their experience and training give them discretion on how best to deal with particular cases.
I do not agree with all that was said by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), but the Home Secretary should deal with two of the points that he made. First, victims should feel that they have a say in sentencing. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Committee for which I had the privilege of serving on, set up the advisory panel. We said that it should include representatives of victims organisations, and we received certain general assurances from the Government. I should be happy if the Home Secretary would write to tell me what voice victims will have on the panel. Does anyone on the panel represent victims organisations?
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed also feared that the Bill spread resources too widely. It may be that resources will be inappropriately used because of the Bill's inflexibility. What are the implications for the probation service? We need flexibility, and Ministers should trust the courts.
The Government are making slightly heavy weather of the Bill. I cannot see why they put up such fierce resistance to a sensible amendment that has won support

on both sides of the House and in the other place. It would be in the spirit of criminal justice legislation if the Government showed some flexibility and listened to representations, even by those who essentially agree with them.

Mr. Peter Brooke: My only qualification for speaking is that I have no qualifications. By definition, I also have no interests to declare. I have never served as a Home Office Minister, perhaps partly because my father once did, and I felt that one member of a family in two generations in the Home Office was an adequate discharge of duty for a single human group.
Nor am I a lawyer, although my younger brother is. He is, in fact, the first member of the family in several generations to have been a lawyer. I once heard him at a local government wards inquiry, but I have never attended upon a court in which he was appearing. I have been a juror only once, when I heard a case involving a kebab house that was operating without a licence. The case took four days, but it was not enough on which to build an understanding of the entire legal system.
Neville Cardus once said that, even if all other batsmen in the world were destroyed in a holocaust, but Tom Graveney remained, we could reconstruct the total art of batsmanship. A wise lady scholar once said that we could construct the entire administration of the Roman empire from the construction of ut with the subjunctive. However, I defy anyone to construct the full majesty of the legal system on a single case involving a kebab house.
When I accepted an invitation to attend West London magistrates court's open day in May—the Lord Chancellor had encouraged them to hold it, and I think the practice extremely good—I did not know that I would be speaking in this debate. Indeed, it would not be dishonest to disclose that I did not know that I would speak in this debate until 2.15 pm today. I come to the Chamber with a mind of molten wax on which my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has most eloquently inscribed my education in these matters. Had I known that I would speak today, I should have paid even closer attention than I did to what I was told at the West London magistrates court.
I enjoyed that visit very much, not least because of a wholly admirable dramatic scenario—it ran all day, but I heard only part of it—in the youth court, in which contemporary cases, written up and prepared in advance in line with present practice, were acted out with splendid realism. That demonstrated how valuable the open days are. It was standing room only for the general public who attended the open day.
I have not yet heard the Government's case on new clause 1—indeed, I am preventing the Home Secretary from offering it. I listened intently to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), and I felt that there was nothing between the Opposition and the hon. Gentleman on the virtues of the proposed procedure. The real test of the issue is whether the harness in which the magistrates will work should be the leather harness commended by the great Duke of Wellington or the iron harness on which the great Napoleon Bonaparte always relied. Bonaparte's dying words may well have been, "We have enlarged the borders of glory", but it was the leather harness that did for him at the battle of Waterloo.
During the last Parliament, a leader in The Daily Telegraph rebuked me for speaking in gentle opposition to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)—then the Home Secretary—on the subject of mandatory sentences. I forget the position then taken by the present Home Secretary, and I do not seek to provoke him into telling me, but I opposed mandatory sentences on the a priori grounds that it was a mistake for judges and the Executive to be in conflict. It was especially so when the Executive in conflict with the judiciary was a Conservative one.
Despite The Daily Telegraph, I remain of the same view today. We should trust magistrates, rather than making up their minds for them.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): It is a privilege to speak to these amendments. The House is broadly agreed about the principles in this part of the Bill, although there are substantial disagreements about how the proposals might operate in practice.
One of the few benefits of being in opposition—there were very few, and I do not recommend it—was that one was able to think about particular institutions in greater depth than one can manage when in government. Along with right hon. and hon. Friends and people outside the House, I paid particular attention to the profound defects of the youth justice system. My hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes) have referred to the current arrangements for dealing with young offenders. To call those arrangements a system is to offer them greater dignity than they deserve.
The system is inadequate. It lacks coherence, speed and a connection between the commission of an offence and the correction and punishment that would make it clear to the young offender that the offence should not have been committed and secure some possibility that reoffending would be avoided.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred to the Scottish example. The Scottish children's panels have been operating for about three decades. They are criticised within Scotland more than they are admired outside—that is always the case. None the less, when I visited Glasgow to look at the operation of the panels, everyone to whom I spoke was in favour of the system. When I consulted my colleagues in the parliamentary Labour party on that matter, I wrote to all of them asking—without leading the answers—what they thought about the youth justice system. It was significant that all the replies of Members representing Scottish constituencies supported the principle of children's panels. Those Members pointed out that some changes might be made, but that the principle was sound and it was working. However, every Labour Member representing an English or Welsh constituency said that those youth justice arrangements were not working and needed to be changed.
We considered Scotland, and some of my colleagues travelled to New Zealand to examine its arrangements for family conferencing. As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) mentioned, several of us have studied carefully the

considerable innovations in the Thames Valley police district, under the leadership of the chief constable, Charles Pollard. We tried to distil that experience to ensure that we developed it against the background of the operation of the English and Welsh legal system, and in order to introduce proposals that would bring into the law those principles of restorative justice—they are contained in part I of the Bill.
I will deal with the specific criticisms that the scheme is too inflexible. I do not think that it is, but I shall answer the point. We are not dealing merely with yet another disposal for the existing youth justice courts; we are dealing with a wholly new approach to young offenders. Although I hope to convince the House, especially sceptical Opposition Members, that the disposal has inherent flexibility, it is inappropriate merely to offer this disposal on a menu of others—alongside fines, conditional discharges or anything else.
We want to change the way in which youth offending is corrected, which brings me to the point made by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). Those Members of the House who have had experience of working in the youth courts—as I did many years ago—or of observing the youth courts, as I did much more recently, will realise that the most disturbing fact about the current operation is that the young offender is, at best, a spectator in a theatre where other people are the actors. At worst, the young offender is wholly detached and contemptuous of what is going on.
We have had a high-flown debate. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) speaking in Brechtian terms of alienation. He was right to do so, because that is exactly what we witness in the theatre of the youth courts. I have been in youth courts where the young offender was talked at, talked across and talked about, but never talked to. The young offender was never asked to engage his or her brain as to what he or she had done, or why—and, above all, why he or she hurt the victim of that crime. Indeed, under the current system, after the young offender has heard everyone else talk about him or her, he or she might be forgiven for thinking that there is only one victim—the young offender. Often, his or her sense of injustice at being caught and at appearing before the court is reinforced by the excuses that are trotted out on his or her behalf.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: It worries me that what happens in court under the system that will be produced by the Bill will not be so very different from what happens at present. I should be grateful for the Home Secretary's comments on that matter. The young offender will be engaged—rightly so—on the occasion when the restorative aspects of the Bill come into effect. After pleading guilty, the young offender will be sent off to the panel and the panel will then engage him. However, the Home Secretary seems to be confusing those two aspects—I am sorry to use such a harsh word as "confusing". We want to make the point that although restorative justice is extremely valuable, it is too valuable to be used in every case; the courts should be allowed to decide.

Mr. Straw: I do not accept that. I shall deal with the inherent flexibility of the system in a moment. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had his way, he would be correct in saying that the court procedures, prior to the transfer to the panel, would be similar to current


arrangements. The similarity would reside in the fact that, in every case, the court would have to go through the often time-consuming and, in many cases, unnecessary process of seeking a pre-sentence report. That takes up time and, I regret, does not necessarily leave the court any the wiser. Under the Bill, where other conditions are satisfied and the court decides that neither an absolute discharge nor a sentence of immediate custody are appropriate—or that in some cases, as I shall explain, even if the offence is an imprisonable one, a sentence of immediate custody is not available because of the operation of other provisions—clause 1 will operate automatically to secure a transfer to the panel if the offender pleads guilty. That will help to reduce the time taken in the theatre of the court.
An inherent feature of the arrangements is the long-standing policy of successive Governments and courts of encouraging those who are guilty to plead guilty. To conclude the formal part of the court process by a reference to the panel should act as further encouragement.
Opposition Members have questioned the flexibility of the proposed scheme. I accept what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have said about the inflexibility of the unit fine arrangements introduced under the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Indeed, other parts of that Act were inflexible. Extraordinarily, I did not protest at the time, although I was doing other things as a member of the Opposition Front Bench. However, I should have protested had I noticed the extraordinary inclusion in the 1991 Act that previous convictions should not be taken into account. It would have been eccentric for even an old Labour Government to introduce such a measure, but, given that the original policy was published when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, I feel that it should be regarded as an abberation.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: rose—

Mr. Straw: I will give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. As the former Solicitor-General, he may have been the author of that abberation.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. My intervention will be very brief.
I am certainly not the author of the abberation. I am afraid that it was deep within the psyche of the Home Office at the time. The judges then construed it in a way that saddened many of us, and they did not get the Home Office out of its hole; in fact, they dug it into a deeper hole, and we had to get it out of the hole later.

Mr. Straw: That may or may not be the case, but I do not recall seeing a Home Office civil servant moving the Second Reading of the legislation that began as the Criminal Justice Bill in 1990. My former constituency neighbour, now Lord Waddington—who was not seen as being on the soft side of the Tory party—was the Home Secretary of the day. Wherever the idea came from, Ministers had clearly discussed it collectively at some length, and had agreed on it. It was not a minor matter. It was not an issue like that involving the Passport Agency, which Home Secretaries may be forgiven for thinking has operated reasonably well for some time—while it is operating well, that is; not otherwise. However, we will not pursue that little excursion.
The circumstances with which the Bill deals are very different from those provided for by the Criminal Justice Act 1991 in regard to unit fines. Flexibility is inherent in the Bill in its present form. Referral will be automatic when there is no absolute discharge or immediate custody. I draw hon. Members' attention to clause 8. There is considerable flexibility in what is actually contained in the contract of a young offender. It certainly does not say, "The case will be transferred to the panel, and this or that must happen." Subsection (2) states:
The terms of the programme may"—
not "shall"—
include provision for any of the following".
The subsection makes provision for
the offender to make financial or other reparation to any person who appears to the panel to be a victim of, or otherwise affected by, the offence".
That amounts to a financial penalty, which the panel can impose, while taking more account of the resources of the young person involved than a court might.
The clause requires offenders to attend
mediation sessions with any such victim or other person".
It requires offenders
to carry out unpaid work or service … the offender to be at home at times specified in or determined under the programme"—
that means a curfew. It requires
attendance by the offender at a school … the offender to participate in specified activities … the offender to present himself to specified persons … to stay away from specified places or persons
and so forth. If offenders refuse to comply with any of the provisions in the contracts that they have signed, they must go back to court and they will be sentenced for their original offence. That is the first part of the flexibility mechanism that has been introduced.

Mr. Boswell: The Home Secretary has explained the provision clearly. Is it not the case, however, that, because the referral is mandatory, it will be a prerequisite for the panel to meet and draw up a contract in each case, even in cases in which—as Conservative Members have tended to argue—referral is inappropriate, and the drawing up of a contract may well be not just otiose but inimical to the cause of preparation?

Mr. Straw: With great respect, I simply do not accept that.

Mr. Llwyd: When I mentioned resource implications earlier, the Home Secretary shook his head vigorously. Is he now saying that clause 8 has no resource implications?

Mr. Straw: No, I am not saying that. Most measures that are presented to the House have resource consequences. May I refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 211 of the explanatory notes? I do not suggest that he has them to hand, but they contain details of the Bill's financial effects. They state—of course, these are estimates—that referrals to youth offender panels will save the probation service around £5.1 million, but will impose costs of about half a million pounds, given the revenue required for fines. Clause 6 will require some


increased recruitment for training, which will be met by the comprehensive spending review settlement for pilot youth justice schemes in 2000, 2001 and 2002.
Part of the purpose of the pilot scheme is to ensure not just that the scheme works, but that we have clear estimates of its total costs. I cannot say this for certain, but I believe that, if it operates efficiently it will save court costs. It ought to save on legal aid as well. Of course, there will be expenditure on the part of the youth offender panels, but I do not think that the Bill will lead to a great increase in spending overall.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: I must make progress, but I will take one last intervention from the former Solicitor-General.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am extremely grateful.
May I ask the Home Secretary about his most recent answer to a question about clause 8? Is he not making the mistake of drawing a parallel with the Children and Young Persons Act 1969? Is it not the case that, according to the Home Secretary's view of the Bill, the courts cannot be trusted to make disposals? I am talking about the inflexibility that means that unless someone is locked up as a result of a custodial sentence, or receives an absolute discharge, the courts have no discretion—the discretion is handed over to the panel. Is that not a big mistake?

Mr. Straw: I do not accept that. It is not a question of trusting the courts; it is a question of whether the magistrates court is the appropriate forum to determine the content of the programme under the referral order. In many cases, experienced youth justice magistrates will be members of the panels.

Mr. Clappison: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: I must get on with my speech.
In Scotland, issues of guilt and innocence are dealt with by the sheriff—a paid judicial office-holder—rather than by magistrates. The Scottish system has moved away from the idea of magistrates courts dealing with issues involving not just the sentence and disposal of young offenders, but their guilt. Our proposals require people to be experienced and professional. I have a high regard for lay magistrates: I think they recognise that dealing with young offenders requires considerable professionalism and training. Indeed, it is possible that members of the proposed panels might have to be magistrates.
The Opposition asked whether other disposals should be available. First, let me deal with the issue of conditional discharge. It is my judgment—I make no apology for it—that conditional discharge is a hopeless disposal for young people, many of whom will have received a number of conditional discharges, or their equivalent, before even going to court. Unless a grave offence is involved, for which a conditional discharge is not appropriate anyway—I mean a serious offence; I do not mean a grave offence within the meaning of clause 53—the police will have already issued warnings and cautions.
When I visited youth courts, I took exception to the fact that, in some cases, half the disposals were conditional discharges. Those of us who have practised in such courts know all too well that young offenders regard conditional discharges as a case of, "I got away with it again."
In section 66 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, we made it impossible for a conditional discharge to be issued by a youth court if a final warning had been issued within the previous two years. In most cases, it would not in any sense be available.
4 pm
There are currently severe problems with the collection of fines, even against adults—so much so that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and I are extremely concerned. In far too many courts throughout the country, far too many fines are remitted—in other words, cancelled—when defaulters wilfully refuse to pay. Except for a small minority—the older age group—the offenders with which this Bill deals will not have resources of their own, so the idea that a fine would be an appropriate penalty is not realistic.
There has been a great deal of discussion of the case of the young person who goes through a red light, so let us deal with it. Statistically, the most numerous group of young offenders who transgress the red light will be aged less than 17: they cannot have a driving licence because they are under age, so they will be literally driving while disqualified from driving. It is probable that they will also be committing many other offences as well. If they have nicked a car or are driving without a licence, it is a serious offence, not a trivial one. Therefore, even if they happen to jump a red light, it is likely that they have committed other, more serious offences.
There will be a small group of red light offenders aged 17 to 18 who have a driving licence—those who, because one has to wait a bit before getting a licence, are in the last nine months of their 17th year. Because gravity factors are already laid down for dealing with offences, most offenders from that small group who jump a light will get a police reprimand or a final warning under our scheme. They might get a fixed penalty: if they accept it, that is the end of the matter and the new arrangements are not triggered. Also, if they object to the fixed penalty, go to court and plead not guilty, the new arrangements are not triggered because they have pleaded not guilty.
The circumstances in which a young offender has jumped a light and the arrangements are then triggered will be few and far between. My judgment is that, in those circumstances, it may well be appropriate to send the youngster to the youth panel. Youngsters in the 17 to 20 age range can commit extremely reckless driving offences. We know that roughly a quarter of all driving offences are committed by those aged between 17 and 24. In many parts of the United States—a country with which we compete for the best road safety record—if youngsters offend against traffic regulations, they are made the subject of the sort of intervention that we seek, rather than being fined or having their offence treated as a trivial matter. I hope that it is recognised that, in the few circumstances in which the new arrangements are triggered, they are appropriate.
I have one final point on the issue of flexibility. I accept—although I doubt it—that the pilots might disclose that there are inflexibilities unanticipated by the House, or the prospect of which has so far been resisted by the Government. For that reason, clause 2(3) provides:
The Secretary of State may by regulations make such amendments of this section"—
the one that lays down the triggers—
as he considers appropriate for altering in any way the descriptions of offenders in the case of which the compulsory referral conditions or the discretionary referral conditions fall to be satisfied for purposes of section 1(2) or (3) (as the case may be).
Therefore, that flexibility is written into the Bill. The Government have no more interest than the Opposition in ending up with a scheme that is brought into disrepute because of inflexibility at the margin, so we shall watch the pilots carefully.
My final comments relate to the provision in the Opposition new clause that would extend the conditions which have to be satisfied before there can be a referral. It contains the phrase:
for which a custodial sentence is available".
I occupied the Opposition Front Bench for almost 17 years, and it was always irritating to me when clever-dick Ministers stood up and said that an amendment was "technically defective". None the less, although the Government resist the principle behind the new clause, that phrase itself is so seriously technically defective that, even if that were our only objection to the new clause—of course, it is not—it would be sufficient to make us reject it.
The phrase describes not an offence that is imprisonable for an adult, but an offence in which a custodial sentence is available for the offender before the court. Any imprisonable offence for adults is also an offence for which custody is available for 15, 16 and 17-year-olds; but, leaving aside grave offences, custody is available for 12, 13 and 14-year olds only if the offender has previously been convicted of at least two other similar offences and has breached a supervision order in respect of one of them.
If the new clause were accepted as drafted, we could end up with the curious situation in which, having decided that custody was not going to be used, a court could not use the transfer referral order to the panel because custody was not available for that offender, and therefore had to impose a fine or a conditional discharge. The extent to which the provision is defective and would hobble the court is obvious.
I hope that the House accepts that I have tried to answer, as fully as I can, the points raised by Opposition Members. The provisions are extremely important. If they are successfully piloted, as I believe they will be, and with the backing of the House and the other place, we shall in years to come be able to look back on this period—indeed, on today—as an occasion on which we began the most major reform since the war of the way in which we deal with young offenders.

Mr. Greenway: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's tutorial on life on the Opposition Front Bench. We have no intention of spending anything like as long on the Opposition Benches before returning to the Benches that his party currently occupies. None the less, we are grateful for the manner in which he has responded to our arguments.
Modesty forbids my revealing the source of the phrase that he has just described as technically inaccurate and defective. However, our intention in tabling new clause 1 is to make a fundamental point, which is why I shall shortly invite the House to express its view in the Lobby. I am also grateful to my right hon. and hon. Friends who spoke in support of the general principle of flexibility.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) failed to explain the Liberal Democrats change of heart on a provision of discretion that his noble Friends in the other place thought so important as to be persuaded to vote in favour of amending a fundamental aspect of clause 1—the "shall" to "may" amendment, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) referred. The Liberal Democrats in the other place supported that amendment, yet, not only did the Liberal Democrat Members in this place vote in Committee against the decision of their noble Friends, but they now speak in favour of the Government's position. We shall be fascinated to see what the right hon. Gentleman's noble Friends make of that when the Bill returns to the other place. I have an inkling that the question of discretion will come up again when, as seems certain, the other place is asked to consider whether the Government's scheme is correct.
Several of my right hon. and hon. Friends spoke in favour of the general principle of additional flexibility. I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) that I am glad that we tabled the new clause, not least because of the amusing and enlightening contribution that it enabled him to make. My right hon. Friend, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison)—who, not so long ago, moved from shadowing this Department to shadowing education and speaks from considerable experience and knowledge of the Bill—all spoke in favour of a degree of flexibility.
With no disrespect to any of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I shall, in the final analysis, rely more on the contribution of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), who has 25 years' experience as a criminal barrister. Although he has difficulty with one or two elements of the new clause, I am sure that he will understand—as I am sure the Home Secretary does—the intricacies of ensuring that we have before us proposals that have not been debated in Committee. It is therefore in order for us to debate those proposals today, and we bore that in mind when drafting new clause 1. In Committee and in the debate today, the hon. Gentleman spoke from experience and pointed out that there is a lack of flexibility in the Bill which will lead to inconsistency, a sense of injustice and, in time, discrediting of the Government's proposals.
There was nothing in the Home Secretary's remarks that responded to the issue, which I addressed in some depth, of on-the-spot fines for young offenders. By delving into clause 8, he served only to heighten our concerns. He effectively concluded that the courts cannot be trusted, a point that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire made in an extremely good intervention. The more one considers the scheme, the more one sees the clear discrepancy between what would be included in a youth offender contract and


the way in which that young person would be disposed of, for the same offence, if he or she were given an on-the-spot fine or fixed penalty notice.
I find it extraordinary that, knowing that we were likely to have this debate today, the Minister of State found it timely yesterday to table the Fixed Penalty Offences Order 1999.

Mr. Straw: Get off.

Mr. Greenway: The right hon. Gentleman says, "Get off', but in no way have his remarks addressed the point that we have made throughout the debate. If a policeman decides to give a 16 or 17-year-old tearaway a fixed penalty notice, that is the end of it, but the court cannot have the same discretion. What is more, if the case ends up going to court, the same circumstances will result in a referral to a youth offender panel, where within the menu of the contract there is nothing available to the panel that is comparable to a fixed penalty notice.
In addition, the panels are likely to prescribe a different course of action in the contracts that they draw up. There will be a huge variation in those contracts, compared with those of other panels, for precisely the same offence. That, too, is an inconsistency that will be the harbinger of resentment, which leads to alienation and is the very opposite of what the Government are trying to achieve.
4.15 pm
The Government could, particularly in Committee, have accepted that their clause is too narrowly drawn. I thought that at the very end of his remarks, the Home Secretary almost admitted that the power that he has under clause 2—which is, in any case, incorporated into our new clause—to vary all the provisions in the light of experience means that perhaps the Government have not got this right and will have to return to it in the future.
The Government will, in any case, run into choppy waters in the other place over this issue. It is disappointing that they have not felt able at least to admit that a tiny degree of extra flexibility ought to be incorporated into the Bill. On Report, we discuss new clauses and amendments tabled by the Opposition to make a point about the Government's Bill, and those new clauses and amendments are bound, on occasion, not to have been drafted entirely correctly—but I do not believe that that should dissuade Opposition Members from pressing the point.
We invite the House to support new clause 1 in the Lobbies because we genuinely believe that the Government are making an error of judgment. When that error comes to light, we shall at least have the satisfaction of being able to point to our attitude to the Bill, and, in years to come, the opportunity in government of putting it right.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 118, Noes 296.

Division No. 230]
[4.17 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Beroow, John


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Beresford, Sir Paul


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Body, Sir Richard


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Boswell, Tim


Beggs, Roy
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)





Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Luff, Peter


Brazier, Julian
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Browning, Mrs Angela
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Burns, Simon
McLoughlin, Patrick


Cash, William
Madel, Sir David


Chope, Christopher
Maples, John


Clappison, James
Mates, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian



Moss, Malcolm


Collins, Tim
Norman, Archie


Colvin, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Paterson, Owen


Cran, James
Pickles, Eric


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Prior, David


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Robathan, Andrew


Duncan, Alan
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Duncan Smith, Iain
St Aubyn, Nick


Evans, Nigel
Sayeed, Jonathan


Faber, David
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Flight, Howard
Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)


Forsythe, Clifford
Soames, Nicholas


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Spicer, Sir Michael


Fox, Dr Liam
Spring, Richard


Garnier, Edward
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gibb, Nick
Streeter, Gary


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Swayne, Desmond


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Syms, Robert


Gray, James
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Green, Damian
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Greenway, John
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Grieve, Dominic
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Heald, Oliver
Thompson, William


Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Townend, John


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Tredinnick, David


Horam, John
Trend, Michael


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tyrie, Andrew


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Viggers, Peter


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Wells, Bowen


Jenkin, Bernard
Whittingdale, John


Key, Robert
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Wilkinson, John


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Willetts, David


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Wilshire, David


Leigh, Edward
Woodward, Shaun


Letwin, Oliver
Yeo, Tim


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter



Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)



Llwyd, Elfyn
Tellers for the Ayes:


Loughton, Tim
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown



and



Mrs. Jacqui Lait.


NOES


Ainger, Nick
Bennett, Andrew F


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Benton, Joe


Alexander, Douglas
Best, Harold


Allan, Richard
Betts, Clive


Allen, Graham
Blackman, Liz


Ashton, Joe
Blears, Ms Hazel


Atherton, Ms Candy
Blizzard, Bob


Austin, John
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Barnes, Harry
Boateng, Paul


Barron, Kevin
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Beard, Nigel
Bradshaw, Ben


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Brand, Dr Peter


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Breed, Colin


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Browne, Desmond


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Buck, Ms Karen






Burden, Richard
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Burgon, Colin
Hancock, Mike


Butler, Mrs Christine
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hepburn, Stephen


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cann, Jamie
Hinchliffe, David


Caplin, Ivor
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Casale, Roger
Hood, Jimmy


Caton, Martin
Hope, Phil


Cawsey, Ian
Hopkins, Kelvin


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Howells, Dr Kim


Clapham, Michael
Hoyle, Lindsay


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hurst, Alan


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Clelland, David
Illsley, Eric


Coaker, Vernon
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Coffey, Ms Ann
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Coleman, Iain
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Colman, Tony
Jenkins, Brian


Connarty, Michael
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Corston, Ms Jean
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Cotter, Brian
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cummings, John
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Darvill, Keith
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dawson, Hilton
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Keetch, Paul


Dismore, Andrew
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Donohoe, Brian H
Kemp, Fraser


Dowd, Jim
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Drown, Ms Julia
Khabra, Piara S


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kilfoyle, Peter


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Efford, Clive
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Ennis, Jeff
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Etherington, Bill
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Fearn, Ronnie
Lepper, David


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Leslie, Christopher


Fisher, Mark
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Linton, Martin


Flint, Caroline
Livingstone, Ken


Flynn, Paul
Lock, David


Follett, Barbara
Love, Andrew


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McAvoy, Thomas


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McCabe, Steve


Fyfe, Maria
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Galloway, George
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Gapes, Mike
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gardiner, Barry
Macdonald, Calum


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McDonnell, John


Gerrard, Neil
McFall, John


Gibson, Dr Ian
McIsaac, Shona


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Godman, Dr Norman A
McNamara, Kevin


Goggins, Paul
MacShane, Denis


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gorrie, Donald
McWalter, Tony


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McWilliam, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mallaber, Judy


Grocott, Bruce
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Grogan, John



Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)



Hall, Patrick (Bedford)






Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Singh, Marsha


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Merron, Gillian
Snape, Peter


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Mitchell, Austin
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Moffatt, Laura
Steinberg, Gerry


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Mudie, George
Stott, Roger


Mullin, Chris
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stringer, Graham


Norris, Dan
Stuart, Ms Gisela


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stunell, Andrew


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Hara, Eddie
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Olner, Bill
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


O'Neill, Marlin
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Öpik, Lembit
Timms, Stephen


Organ, Mrs Diana
Tipping, Paddy


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Todd, Mark


Palmer, Dr Nick
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Pearson, Ian
Touhig, Don


Pickthall, Colin
Trickett, Jon


Pike, Peter L
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pollard, Kerry
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Pond, Chris
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Pope, Greg
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pound, Stephen
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Tyler, Paul


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Walley, Ms Joan


Prosser, Gwyn
Wareing, Robert N


Purchase, Ken
Watts, David


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
White, Brian


Rammell, Bill
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Wicks, Malcolm


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wills, Michael


Rooker, Jeff
Winnick, David


Rowlands, Ted
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Roy, Frank
Wise, Audrey


Ruddock, Joan
Worthington, Tony


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Wray, James


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Savidge, Malcolm



Sawford, Phil



Sedgemore, Brian



Shaw, Jonathan



Sheerman, Barry
Tellers for the Noes:


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Mr. David Hanson and


Shipley, Ms Debra
Mr. Keith Hill.

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 1

YOUTH OFFENDER PANELS: FURTHER COURT PROCEEDINGS

Amendments made: No. 2,in page 52, line 9, leave out 'sentences' and insert 'deals with'.

No. 3, in page 53, line 8, and insert 'paragraphs 11 and
Insert 'paragraphs 11 and 12'.—[Mr. Boateng.]

New Clause 3

CONDITIONS FOR MAKING AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 44(5)

'.—(1) Before making an order under section 44(5), the Secretary of State shall—

(a) publish a notice of his intention to make such an order and the reasons for his decision; and
(b) consult such persons as appear to him to be representative of news gathering and reporting organisations and any other persons he considers appropriate.

(2) The Secretary of State shall not make any order under section 44(5) until six months after the date of publication of the notice of intention under subsection (1)'.—[Mr. Greenway.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Greenway: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
As I did in Committee, I remind the House that I have an interest as a consultant to ITV Network Ltd., but none of the matters that we are to debate this afternoon are of concern to the broadcast media. Indeed, as I said in Committee, it is the printed media rather than the broadcast media that have residual concerns about the provisions of clause 44.
Clause 44, which was previously clause 43, seeks to clarify the law on press reporting restrictions on the identification of children and young persons under the age of 18, who may have been involved in criminal offences. The proposals as originally drafted, before the Bill began its passage through the other place, gave rise to huge anxiety and concern that they were too far-reaching and would seriously inhibit media, particularly local and regional newspapers, from reporting criminal incidents of a more or less general nature.
Several well-known crimes were cited as events that the press would have been restricted in reporting. The appalling murder of James Bulger was one. Another was the horrific tragedy at Dunblane. The Bill does not apply to Scotland, but had such an incident occurred in England, it would have been subject to the provisions. Perhaps the most accurate example was the attack on a school playground in Wolverhampton, in which a number of children were injured and considerable bravery was displayed by a teacher, Lisa Potts.
Arising from those concerns, changes were introduced in the other place, including some important defences to publication. One such defence would be that permission had been granted by the parents or guardians. Another would be that the criminal investigation in respect of the incident had not begun, although we still are not clear how wide or narrow that window is likely to be in practice. A third would be the inadvertent reporting of the identity of a young person. The final such case would be one in which the reporting could be considered to be in the public interest, as defined by the open reporting of crime.
Those changes were welcome and we supported them, but the position was still not satisfactory. Many right hon. and hon. Members have been contacted by their local newspapers with expressions of concern about the implications of the restrictions for the reporting of relatively routine incidents. In particular, it was stressed that the local press often play an important and beneficial

role—for example, when an incident such as a kidnapping has occurred—in helping the police to trace the whereabouts of the people concerned.
Such an incident occurred recently in the Home Secretary's constituency, Blackburn. As a result of co-operation between the police and local media, the young person, who sadly had fallen into the control of a known sex offender, was located and taken back to his home and to safety. There is no doubt that the press often report such incidents responsibly and constructively, with beneficial consequences for the criminal process.

Miss Julie Kirkbride: Will my hon. Friend make it clear that we are discussing circumstances in which young people under the age of 18 are the victims of crime, not the possible perpetrators of the crime?

Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has considerable experience of these matters. It will become clear that there is a differentiation along the lines that she suggests. That is the essence of our concern and the point of the new clause.
In Committee, in response to the anxieties that I have outlined, the Government tabled an amendment that limited the effect of the immediate prohibition on reporting to the identification of young persons under the age of 18 who were likely to be the accused or the defendant in a criminal case. With regard to victims or witnesses to a criminal incident, the provision will have effect only if the Secretary of State has laid an order that is debated and approved subject to the affirmative resolution procedure of both Houses.
We must consider whether there is a case for a wider prohibition than is currently enshrined in our law in respect of a young person who may be a defendant or an accused in a criminal court. Having given the matter a great deal of thought, Conservative Members have accepted, as I told the Minister in Committee, that perhaps there is such a case.
Perhaps the most celebrated example of the type of abuse that the Bill would now prevent was that of Mr. Adam Dent, an extremely bright 15-year-old who was already an undergraduate. He was falsely accused of rape and his academic career was ruined as a consequence of the publicity. He was not only not convicted but never charged. I have done a little research since the Bill was in Committee and I understand that that case took place when the previous Government introduced the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. Some consideration was given to whether a prohibition such as that which the Government are introducing in the Bill might have been appropriate to that legislation, but one could not be incorporated because the content of the Bill restricted the actions of the then Government and they could not make such an amendment.
Although we are prepared to accept that there is a case for strengthening the law further to protect young persons who have been accused of a crime, some concern remains. The Minister will be aware of a case that has been cited in the general discussion about the provisions. A 16-year-old girl was arrested as she emerged from a tunnel from which she had been protesting about a road development and a picture of her beaming face appeared across the top of the front page of The Times; I am told that the photograph is still on its website. She was


identified by every national newspaper except one. She was never prosecuted. Clearly, if such an incident arose again, national newspapers would have to rely on some of the other defences and it remains to be seen whether those defences will prove adequate.
In spite of our agreement that there is a case in principle for further change, it is likely that the new provisions—even in respect of young persons who are defendants—will cause some difficulty and in due course will test the Home Secretary's willingness to work with the Press Complaints Commission to discuss and review the best long-term approach to these matters. I hope that those remarks are helpful to the Minister.
We come now to the nub of the current continuing difficulty. The Government provided some relief for victims and witnesses and for local newspaper editors by deciding, with the support of the PCC, to incorporate in the Bill the requirement that those prohibitions will not apply to a young person who is a victim or a witness unless and until the House and the other place agree an affirmative resolution in respect of an order to be laid by the Secretary of State. I challenged the Minister in Committee by suggesting that that was an apparent climbdown. I use the word "apparent" advisedly, because we still do not know the Government's long-term intentions.
I tried to test the Minister on that issue in Committee, but his answer was not entirely reassuring. I have revisited what he said. I am not in any way challenging the sincerity of his remarks; I am simply drawing attention to their inadequacy in respect of providing reassurance for the print media. He said
the provisions should not be implemented after Royal Assent unless there has been a further debate in both Houses."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 29 June 1999; c. 232.]
He gave no indication of what the time scale for such a course of events might be. He also said that the Government did not intend the proposals to have the force of law unless the Secretary of State brought forward an order, subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses, to the effect that the provisions be enacted. There was no suggestion of the timetable.

Mr. Peter Viggers: I am confused about this matter and I wonder whether my hon. Friend can help me. Does he anticipate that the order made by the Secretary of State will be general, allowing the provision to be implemented in all cases, or will it relate to specific individuals and specific offences?

Mr. Greenway: I anticipate that it will be general. As I understand the scheme that the Government have agreed with the PCC and my noble Friend Lord Wakeham, the provision will not be implemented unless and until an order is made to implement it and both Houses will have the opportunity to hold a debate on the affirmative procedure to say whether they approve of it.
We are not clear about the Government's long-term intentions. Although there is now a sense of relief and they are off the hook because they have accepted an amendment, we are left with the prospect of the provision, which has caused such concern to regional and local newspapers in particular, lying on the statute book waiting

for the day when the Home Secretary gets up one morning, decides to lay the order and asks both Houses to approve it in a week or two.
I may have exaggerated what might happen, but that is where we stand. We need more clarification of the Government's long-term intentions. Are they in favour of or against implementing the provision? If they have decided that it is not such a good idea, why incorporate it in the Bill in the first place? What is the point? Why was it not agreed before we began Committee proceedings that there should be a prohibition in respect of persons under 18 who are likely to be the accused in a criminal trial? The witnesses and victims could have been left out of that altogether. But no, the provision remains in the Bill and we have simply this order-making power.
Given that the provision has been incorporated, one can assume only that the Government want to retain the opportunity in case at some future date they are minded to implement it. Today we need to know what the circumstances are which would prompt the Government to implement this provision through the order-making power. I put that question to the Minister in Committee but, as I am sure the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) will agree, answer came there none. That is why we are seeking further answer today.
Furthermore, the correspondence between the Home Secretary and my noble Friend Lord Wakeham, which the Minister kindly placed in the Library and I have now had the opportunity to review, makes it clear that in any event the PCC has agreed that there will be a review of the code of practice which relates to the protection of children who might be harmed by publicity in relation to a crime in which they were involved. That encourages me to return to my earlier point: in such circumstances if the PCC is undertaking its review, surely it would be better to remove the victim and witness provision from the Bill and await the outcome of the review. Sadly, that is neither the Government's choice, nor the option before us today.
We tabled new clause 3 with three clear objectives. When the Minister responds I hope that he will treat them in the spirit in which they have been proposed and try to give not just us but a lot of worried editors in local newspapers some greater reassurance. Our first objective is to have that greater reassurance about the circumstances which might persuade the Home Secretary to make an order under this provision. What do the Government have in mind that makes them want to keep the provision in the Bill? The second objective is to give voice to the anxieties of local newspaper editors who, from all our experience, generally take a responsible attitude to reporting incidents involving young children. I know that point is of concern to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who raised it in Committee. The third objective is to impose a better framework for the order-making power, should the Home Secretary decide that it were appropriate to implement it.
In the spirit of the reassurances already given, one assumes by implication that the Government are not currently minded to implement these provisions, but we have to accept that the circumstances could change. If they do and the Home Secretary decides to implement this, he would have nothing to fear from a requirement, such as that in the new clause, to announce an intention to bring forward the order and state his reasons. In all respects this first element of new clause 3 is entirely


unexceptional and unobjectionable. It simply requires the Secretary of State to state that he intends to make an order and to give his reasons for doing so.
The second element is that the Secretary of State, having made his announcement, should consult. This might occur several years hence when there might be a different Home Secretary and, with any luck, a different Government. Surely consultation would be appropriate. It is unthinkable that the Home Secretary would feel it unnecessary to discuss the issue again with print and broadcast media. It is entirely likely that local newspapers would want to talk to their local Members of Parliament about their concerns about what the Government have in mind. Indeed, if the check of an affirmative resolution of both Houses is to have any value, right hon. and hon. Members will need to know how they are to use their vote. If there is to be no consultation and they are simply to be whipped through the Lobby in five seconds flat because the order has been laid and they have been told to vote for it, that provides no protection whatever. Therefore, we need consultation so that right hon. and hon. Members will know how to vote or, if they are being told to vote for it, at least they will have discussed the matter with their local newspaper and will understand the implications of it for that paper.
Furthermore, there must be consultation to take account of the implications of an order for all aspects of self-regulation of the press and the review of the code of conduct, which the PCC is undertaking and which has been published in the letters that have been laid in the House. It is entirely reasonable to have consultation on a proposal to lay an order.
Subsection (2) of new clause 3 would require a six month delay. Surely time for reflection on the introduction and imposition of such a draconian press reporting prohibition would not be a bad idea. We often talk about the need to avoid knee-jerk legislation. Such a reaction is a bad idea, but it takes five or six months to get primary legislation through the House, unless there is agreement on a fast track approach. An order-making power that is subject only to affirmative resolution could be through the House in two or three weeks. What is wrong with requiring a six-month delay before making an order?
We should resist the temptation to make an order as a knee-jerk reaction to a gross abuse committed by one element of the tabloid press. The best response is to give time for reflection. The local and regional press may have acted responsibly following the enactment of this legislation. They should not be penalised because of the wrongdoing of one tabloid newspaper, which committed such a gross abuse that everyone said something must be done about it. People may say, "The order-making power is already in the Bill, so what's the reason for delay? Let's get on with it." However, we think that it would be no bad thing to have a six-month delay.
If the Government, on reflection, have decided that they will not implement this provision for the time being, and are persuaded by the argument that it will, hopefully, not be necessary, what is wrong with incorporating a six-month delay as a safeguard?
Those are reasonable safeguards and make better sense of the Government's position. They do not inhibit the power to impose the restriction, but they would enable

local newspapers and other responsible media to ask the Home Secretary to think again if he were minded to make an order under clause 44(5). Most important of all, it would give right hon. and hon. Members the chance to reflect on and understand the implications and consequences of a decision to restrict press freedom in an important area of public life if the public have a genuine right to know.
The new clause is the very minimum that the House should expect and insist on from a Government who preach the doctrine of freedom of information, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Viggers: As I have not previously spoken on the Bill, may I say that I welcome it in general terms? Some of us occasionally go out with our local police force and see the behaviour of young people late at night, and we have all heard about young people committing burglary offences. Whatever the crime, the gap between the commission of the alleged offence and the bringing of the offender to trial must be kept as short as possible. That is the main thrust of the Bill, and I very much welcome it.
The detail is important, and we are discussing a particular point about publicity. The courts in England and Wales operate on the principle that court business should be conducted openly. That is an important part of our justice system. Under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, the court may, in certain circumstances, prohibit the name and address of an individual being revealed. As the law currently stands, there are also important provisions protecting young people, specifically section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, which allows a court to prohibit the reporting of the name, address, school or other particulars that identify children and young persons under the age of 17.
5 pm
I come to my first question to the Minister. I have not taken part in the Committee stage of the Bill, so I would be interested to know why the Government propose to restrict reporting of young people under the age of 18, rather than 17. The age at which restrictions may be imposed is being increased, whereas in most other sectors—I think particularly of homosexual law so-called reform—the age is being reduced. I should be grateful if the Minister would remind hon. Members why, in the case of reporting restrictions, the age is being increased, so that people under the age of 18, rather than 17, are protected.
I welcome the fact that the clause relates not only to England and Wales, but to Northern Ireland and to courts-martial. I am always vigilant to see where legislation shall apply. When I was a Northern Ireland Minister, it seemed strange that, frequently, I had to come to the House to introduce legislation relating to Northern Ireland that replicated legislation that had been introduced for England and Wales. In so far as it is possible, legislation that applies to the entire United Kingdom should be introduced.
Similarly, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence on two of the past three sessions when it has considered the Armed Forces Bill—the Bill to change armed forces legislation specifically relating to courts-martial and other matters—I welcome the fact that courts-martial are specifically referred to in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill. Again, wearing my


hat as Chairman of the Select Committee, it seemed strange that courts-martial should be subject to separate legislation. Again, one would like legislation to be applied to England, Wales, Northern Ireland and courts-martial.
The central point of the new clause is to ask whether the Government have decided to implement clause 44(5). I was surprised when I read how broadly it was drafted. It simply says that subsection (4)(b), which restricts publication in cases of witnesses, or those who have been victims of crime, will apply
on or after such date as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State.
It does not say whether the Secretary of State must introduce an order to implement the whole of subsection (4)(b); I should like to know the answer to that question. Will the Government introduce a broad order that will implement all of paragraph (b), or will it be open to the Government to decide, for example, that that paragraph will apply only to witnesses? Will they perhaps introduce legislation by affirmative resolution to ensure that subsection (4)(b) will apply only to individuals against whom an offence is alleged to have been committed?
The provision is extremely broad and confirms the view that I have had for a number of years that amendments to existing legislation and legislation brought in rapidly tend not to be good legislation. It would be far better if the Government, having not made up their mind on the point and having left it wide open, subject only to affirmative resolution, left the matter and decided that, if they wished to implement the necessary legislation, they would introduce primary legislation.
The manner in which the House is treated by the Government means that we are not overtaxed in terms of legislation. The House could discuss matters of great note for a longer time. The terms of the Bill are far too loose, wide and arbitrary. Knee-jerk reaction to events in the tabloid press can often lead the Government to introduce bad legislation. Do I hear the words, "dangerous dogs"? I ask the House to support the entirely reasonable new clause, which has been effectively moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway).

Mr. Bob Russell: Does the Minister recall the Standing Committee's first sitting, on 25 May, when I mentioned that there would be disagreement about the Bill's reporting provisions? I went on to say:
I urge the Government to think seriously about the media's reservations."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 25 May 1999; c. 5.]
Does he agree that that one sentence, on which the Government acted, did more to alter the Bill's course than the hours of waffle that we have heard from the hon. Member for Lymeswold—the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway)?
In a previous career, I was a court reporter, and I am approaching the issue from that perspective. Will the Minister tell us why, if there had been so much discussion and liaison with the media, the draconian ban on reporting was proposed initially? I suggest that, far from encouraging less court reporting—especially in the weekly and provincial media—we should be encouraging greater coverage of court cases.
Since the Government's amendments were tabled in Committee, what further representations have Minsters received from the Newspaper Society and the Guild of

Editors—who represent those working in the real newspaper world, and have experience of producing weekly and evening newspapers?
In Committee, the Minister gave the impression that everyone in the newspaper world believed that the Government's amendments would resolve the problem. However, they do not believe that. In an ideal world—as hon. Members have already said—the provision would be withdrawn and proposed again later, so that it might be debated fully. Presumably, however, we are simply being asked to accept the lesser of two evils.
The vast majority of cases involving young children that are reported are reported in the weekly and provincial press. Newspapers are wedded to their communities—to which they have a responsibility—and, indeed, behave responsibly. I again ask the Minister to give an assurance that the one or perhaps two occasions on which a national tabloid newspaper has gone over the top will not be used as an excuse for a blanket ban on the weekly press.
I received a letter from the editor-in-chief of Essex County Newspapers—which produces two evening newspapers and various weekly newspapers in the county of Essex—in which she states:
Editors and media experts fear that"—
the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill—
will prevent publication of matters of legitimate public interest …
The Bill will make it an offence for the media to identify under 18-year-olds who might be victims, witnesses or the perpetrators of crimes under investigation. The ban will last until legal proceedings (if any) commence or the young person reaches the age of 18.
The provision is a threat to freedom of the press. It would prevent the media from carrying a great deal of inoffensive and unharmful material. Indeed, many items that serve the public interest, by highlighting the effect of crime, would be banned. A newspaper would be barred, for example, from publishing a report about a 17-year-old pop singer who had a precious gold record stolen. It could also prevent a newspaper from printing an interview with a 17-year-old student who saw a fight break out on a football terrace—which is not something that ever happens in Colchester, although it does happen elsewhere.
It is true that an editor could escape prosecution by pleading before magistrates either that the material was in the public interest or that the parties, or their guardians, had given written consent. However, the presumption against publication would serve to discourage the media from pursuing such stories.
Protecting young offenders is not the point of the provision, as they are already provided with anonymity under current legislation. Neither is the point to protect victims of sex offenders, as they, too, are already provided with anonymity.
Irene Kettle, the editor-in-chief, continues:
My concern is that the media will find itself unable to properly report a wide range of events if everyone under 18 who is either a victim of any crime or a witness must be anonymous …
It is unclear when the ban would become active. Would, for example, a young accident victim or missing child have to stay anonymous because of police involvement and the possibility of a prosecution?
She later says:
The public interest defence is unsatisfactory. It would place editors in the position of having to second guess a court's attitude.
The new clause relates to the Government amendments moved in Committee in response to the criticisms of the original draft of the Bill on reporting restrictions. We welcome the Government's movement on the issue, but it is only one step and many more are required. The Government amendments were designed to ensure that the reporting restrictions in the Bill relating to young victims and witnesses could be implemented only if a draft order to that effect was approved by affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses. Following widespread criticism of the proposals, the Government have chosen to suspend the implementation of the reporting restrictions and have said that they want regulation to work. We all hope that it will.
In Committee, the Minister said:
Given the reach of clause 43's restrictions and the number of reports that they might affect, and given the possibility that our aims might be achievable through other means, it is right that the provision should not be implemented after Royal Assent unless there has been further debate in both Houses. If the amendments are accepted, we"—
the Government—
are bound to undertake to keep the case for implementation under regular review, and I am happy to give such an undertaking."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 29 June 1999; c. 232.]
We have said all along that we understand and share the Government's aim to provide greater protection for the privacy of young victims and witnesses. However, the Government seemed to get into a mess with their original proposals—otherwise why the rushed amendments? It became clear that the scope of the restrictions and the practicalities were not thought through—again, otherwise why the Government amendments?
The new clause would ensure that should the Government—or a future Government—decide to go ahead with the proposals, an order would have to be placed before Parliament for approval and the Government would be required to consult representatives of the media—more than just Lord Wakeham. A delay of six months before implementation would also be imposed. We appreciate the thinking behind that. It seems clear that consultation was non-existent or substandard before the Bill was published and it is understandable following that failure that we should want to impose a requirement for consultation in future.
The Newspaper Society has welcomed the Government's amendments in Committee, but it feels that the proposals are still hanging over the newspapers. That is particularly true of the weekly and provincial press. I should be happy if the Minister could divide the proposed ban—if it ever came in—to put the national press in a separate category from the responsible provincial weekly press.
The new clause would mean that at least representatives of the media would be guaranteed further consultation if any Government decided to go ahead with the proposals. We support the new clause and we invite the Conservatives to press it to a vote.

Miss Kirkbride: I do not really have an interest to declare, but before I became a Member of Parliament I earned my living as a journalist on a national daily newspaper. It could be said that the interests of my former colleagues give me a specific interest in the debate, but I

do not have a financial interest. I share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway).
We are concerned because of the original proposal. The fact that the Government entered the debate by suggesting a blanket ban on the reporting of any person under 18 who was involved in any way—as the accused or the victim—in a potential criminal offence leads us to have suspicions about their motives.
5.15 pm
It is right and proper that the Government have climbed down by taking on board the legitimate concerns of the press. However, the fact that they started with a draconian ban—which would have been unworkable and unacceptable causes us concern. I therefore support our aim to restrict the Government's ability to introduce a ban in this area.
The use of affirmative resolutions may be dangerous, as major changes to public policy must be made by the proper legislative procedures. They must go through both Houses of Parliament and all stages. There should not be a one-off vote late at night, when many of us may not be totally aware of what is proposed. The proposal must be in the Bill and not in the small print, waiting for a moment when the Government think that they can get away with it.
The new clause must be considered; a resolution could not be pushed through as a result of the six-month consultation period. There would be no question of the Government bouncing the proposal through on the back of disinterest, lack of understanding or potential emotion following an incident that has caused public anxiety.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) asked why we are now talking about the age of 18 for reporting restrictions, when many other activities are licensed at 16 or 17. The extension of the protection of anonymity to the age of 18 seems intriguing.
For victims, or the accused, at risk of potential embarrassment by being named in court—I am thinking of rape victims—there is anonymity. However, we are concerned that the Government are proposing to give anonymity in matters that go beyond sexual offences.
We do not know whether the Government are proposing a blanket ban on naming all victims of criminal offences under the age of 18, or a specific ban in certain circumstances. For example, would it have been possible, desirable or rational to try to introduce a ban on the reporting of what happened at Dunblane? The Scottish example is inappropriate, because Scotland has a different criminal law. Sadly, however, such an event could happen anywhere in the United Kingdom. It is simply not reasonable that the British public should not be informed. The press may have behaved badly at Dunblane, and I do not wish to defend some of the actions of my former colleagues. There may have been painful intrusion into the parents' bereavement, but it is not right to restrict the ability of the press to report an incident such as Dunblane.
A road accident might lead to a criminal investigation. A group of young people died in a bus in my constituency. If a criminal investigation had resulted, perhaps because of the involvement of a drunk driver, would the national or local press have been banned from reporting the accident, which of course was a matter of huge public concern in my constituency and beyond?
What do the Government have in mind? Sadly, young people are sometimes kidnapped by paedophiles for their sexual gratification. Surely the press should be able to report that. The police say that the evidence that they get from the public in the first few days of an investigation, when the incident gets into the press and causes a sensation, often helps them to put together a picture of the offender. I cannot believe that the Government intend to block that.
In all the instances that I have mentioned, the public interest is hugely served by the press being able to report. The Government are setting out to protect the victims, but often they are protected by the facts becoming known. The press should not have to worry about a public interest defence and obtaining consent for publication. The parents in a kidnapping, for example, would be totally traumatised and incapable of a rational decision.
What circumstances could possibly arise in which the Government would want to give anonymity to victims under 18? Do they intend a blanket or a specific ban? If they intend a specific ban on a named individual, how can they hope to legislate through Parliament quickly enough to stop the press publishing? The House, I am pleased to say, does not sit seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. I can only assume that the Government intend a blanket ban. I fail to understand how they will be able to take account of the circumstances that I have described.
Will the Minister give us a very concrete, albeit hypothetical, example of circumstances in which he would use the provision and explain why it would protect the victim under the age of 18? Why should the House give the Government a legislative vehicle to introduce what would, in my view, be an unacceptable restriction on press freedom?

Mr. Dawson: I shall make a brief contribution. It is saddening and unfortunate that so few Conservative Members recognise the crucial element of this matter. They have spoken—rightly—about press freedom and the public interest, about the need to know and about the rights of the press in a free society to report news, but they have not mentioned the interests of children.
The Government's approach is balanced, proper and responsible. I hope that Conservative Members will consider the coverage of children and childhood that appears in the local press, as well as in the national tabloids. I contend that the press does not understand children and the reality that they face in this country, nor that childhood is a time for exploration, growth and development.
What are the Government's reasons for proposing this measure? That question has been asked rhetorically, but I shall answer it. The proposals are necessary precisely because the years before 18 are the time of childhood. Young people below 18 have no vote and play very little part in civic society. They have few forms of redress, and they lack the confidence to engage with their local press.

Mr. Bob Russell: If things are so bad in the weekly provincial press, why have the Government agreed to defer implementation of the proposal?

Mr. Dawson: I think that that deferral stems from the balanced approach that the Government have adopted. The solution lies with the responsible press and with

Conservative Members. In Committee, I wondered why editors and journalists, both locally and nationally, do not talk to young people about the coverage that they are given. That is a serious point. What are the perceptions of young people's organisations of the way in which young people are treated?

Miss Kirkbride: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The proposal is to ban items in the press covering possible criminal offences whose victims are under 18. Will the hon. Gentleman give a specific example of when such a ban would be right?

Mr. Dawson: I was about to give an example of detrimental coverage, which involved a young victim of sexual abuse—one of the most serious crimes conceivable. The crime was reported in the local newspaper. The victim's relative was taken to court, and neither perpetrator nor victim was identified. However, the headlines were excruciating. The treatment of the story was grossly insensitive. Nothing in the paper said who that young person was or where she lived, but she knew who she was, and she was mortified by the reports of her case.
5.30 pm
The Government are trying to reflect the fact that even when serious offences are quite properly reported, the press should be far more sensitive to the experience of victims, especially children and adolescents who face a mixture of dilemmas, confusions and difficulties.

Miss Kirkbride: The hon. Gentleman's example would not be covered by the Government's proposals as it is already covered by restrictions on identifying victims of rape. A blanket ban on identifying people under 18 would make no difference. Press coverage would be even more general if it were restricted as the Government propose.

Mr. Dawson: I do not agree. My point is more wide ranging and subtle than that. Opposition Members are being complacent, and they should recognise the problem. Neither in Committee nor today have I heard any Opposition Member recognise insensitive press reporting of children. Children are routinely described as being the root of problems. Children in care—about whom I may feel unusually sensitive—are routinely described either as villains or, in the most saccharine and cloying terms, as victims.

Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman is obviously concerned about reporting of the cases of young people under the existing law. Does he favour implementing subsection 4(b), and if so, why not now?

Mr. Dawson: The Government are wise to strike a balance and to give the media an opportunity to reflect, as all of us should, on its attitudes towards young people. We should listen more to children and take more account of what they say. If the media could do that, we might resolve some of the problems with which the Bill is intended to deal.

Mr. Llwyd: I regret to say that I found the remarks of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson)


rather patronising. He implied that Opposition Members have no regard for the rights of children, and I am sure that I speak for all of us in disagreeing with him. I am vice-chairman of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in Wales, and I have consistently advocated the rights of children since I was elected to Parliament. I shall continue to do so.
My commitment does not undermine my need to examine legislation. If I thought that the Government's proposal would further the interests of children in any way, I would not speak against it, and I should be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would not adopt such a patronising stance. Speaking as a father, I can say that we all respect children.

Mr. Dawson: May I make it clear that I did not intend to be patronising? I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's commitment to children's rights, and am glad to hear him express it.

Mr. Llwyd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that acknowledgement and for putting the record straight.
This part of the Bill will have huge repercussions. Earlier, the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) used the word "draconian"; that might be an understatement. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) described the offence that would be created. The only way to avoid the risk of prosecution is for editors to apply to a court to lift the ban when it is in place.
There are other concerns about the procedure. The Home Office suggests that the police will decide when the ban is triggered, and that the police will be the first to apply for a court order in such cases. In relation to free speech, are we happy for the police to acquire even greater influence over what can or cannot be published before legal proceedings? Will there be a risk of public prosecution if editors publish uncontroversial stories that magistrates do not like?
I too have seen disgraceful reports, but they are not the general rule; they are very much the exception. By and large, our regional press are extremely good; they serve the interests of the public and of politicians. They do a darn good job. We should not tar them all with the same brush because of the one or two instances of indefensible behaviour to which reference has rightly been made.
A ridiculous situation is envisaged in the measure: that if a group of youngsters were to be named, it would be possible to ask for permission beforehand. That is rather cumbersome. The veto would further complicate matters; it could be manipulated to avoid publicity—for example, where a parent might be in dispute with a local authority as to the standard of its care of his or her child. Even a technical objection would neither give nor veto consent. The public interest defence to which the hon. Member for Colchester referred is not a catch-all to meet concerns. Day in and day out, editors will no doubt be at risk of committing a criminal offence for routine reporting.
Of course, the type of reporting to which the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre referred should be criminal behaviour. However, such reporting does not occur often, thank heavens. By and large, we have a responsible press. Like all hon. Members, I receive letters

from the regional press. I refer especially to the Western Mail and the Daily Post—the daily newspapers that serve Wales. Those papers do a good job, although they do not report enough of my party's doings—I shall not go into that now. [Interruption.] However, to be serious, they do a reasonable job. I have been reading those newspapers for about 30 years and, with hand on heart, I can say that I have never seen a report of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre. No doubt, he was talking about a tabloid report.
We must try to put the matter into context. Do we really want editors to be constantly looking over their shoulders, having to second-guess whether a court would decide that a public interest defence will succeed or fail? That is not healthy for any kind of press. It is not healthy for freedom of speech—as was pointed out earlier. The measure is astonishing from a Government who are talking about freedom of information.
Editors would be able to plead public interest or written consent in defence before a magistrates court. However, if the Crown Prosecution Service decided to prosecute for the identification of witnesses, the only defence would be that the editor did not know that the ban had been triggered and that the material published identified the young person concerned. It is a tenuous and unsatisfactory matter. The Government have not proved the need for automatic restrictions—especially on the identification of young witnesses. That is not justified.
It is questionable, at least, whether the Bill conforms with article 10 of the European charter relating to freedom of expression. Apart from the uncertainty about when the ban is triggered, there are problems over the written-consent defence, and the reasons why a public-interest defence application for the ban to be listed for the sake of justice might not well apply to many uncontroversial stories.
Of course, the papers can go to the trouble of finding a magistrate or instructing a lawyer, but that is not really practicable, especially in the case of the regional press. I feel that a rather large sledgehammer is being taken to crack a rather small perceived nut. Let me again refer to the section 39 orders, which apply to the identification of youngsters. Evidence suggests that magistrates will be restricted, and that cannot be good for free speech.
Finally, let me say that the absence of a requirement for the Attorney-General's fiat for prosecutions deprives the media of a safeguard, in the form of consistency in prosecution policy. I consider that to be a public-interest matter, and a very important one.
I have the greatest possible regard for children's rights, and if I thought they were being infringed I would not be speaking in this way. I sincerely believe, however, that this part of the Bill is wrong in principle, and may well lead to a denial of free speech. That cannot be good for any of us.

Mr. David Wilshire: Let me reassure the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) that I am not implacably opposed to the Bill, or to clause 44. I mention the hon. Gentleman because something that he said underlines my reason for wishing to speak. If I remember correctly, he said that the media did not understand children. My guess is that huge numbers of editors, sub-editors, photographers, reporters et al are


parents, and sweeping generalisations are at the heart of my concerns and, I think, those of others. It is very easy to have a knee-jerk reaction.
It is a pleasure to ask this Minister questions, and I know that he will respond to them fully. I have a great deal of sympathy with what the Bill seeks to achieve, and, in principle, I do not oppose the powers that are being sought in clause 44. Of course abuses are taking place, and harm is being done to some young people; but—and it is on the "but" that I think we should focus—censoring the media, for whatever reason, should not be undertaken lightly. However sensible the motive may be, it is still censorship of the media.
Let me make a confession. I am one of those people who, every so often, have an overwhelming desire to censor the media. It usually takes me late at night, when I have stopped thinking too clearly. When, on the following morning, I muse on my thoughts of the night before, a little mature reflection reminds me of the inherent dangers of what I advocated the night before. Even when my motives of the night before were good, I realise the following day that reflection pays. I feel that a little mature reflection this afternoon, and a little mature reflection before these powers are used, is needed now.
I did not serve on the Standing Committee, and I have not heard all that has been said about the Bill; but I understand that, according to the procedures of the House, if a Bill comes to us on Report it means that someone—presumably the Speaker—has decided that an issue has not been debated or has not been debated fully, or that there are other reasons for bringing the Bill back to the House. I submit that there is a good reason for us to debate the Bill this afternoon, and I urge the Minister to explain again why he wants the powers that clause 44 would enable him to exercise. Surely there can be some occasions when publication is in the public interest, and even in the interests of the victims themselves. The Government are seeking significant powers of censorship, so I believe that we are right to debate them this afternoon and to require full explanation and justification of the proposals.
5.45 pm
More significant is the need for a spot of mature reflection before the powers, if they are approved by the House, are used, and that is the purpose of the new clause. It would defend the Government of the day, whatever their political persuasion, from the late-night, snap decision forced through the House when perhaps people like me are not thinking as clearly as we might and a bit of time for consideration would not come amiss.
When I look back on some of my instantaneous judgments, I often realise that my motives, the research that was carried out, the analysis I made of the issues and amount of time I spent consulting other people and listening to them were somewhat lacking. I have a sense that the same would be true of any Government that instantly decided to introduce a ban. Just as I try to test my motives the next day, the Government must provide the opportunity for the public at large, the affected media and the House to test their motives, test their logic, listen to their justifications and ensure that they have consulted and arrived at sensible conclusions.
That is why I support new clause 3: all it does is protect the Home Secretary of the day from getting it wrong by indulging in knee-jerk reactions. It simply requires the

Home Secretary, before he uses the powers in clause 44, to give notice that he is going to do so—instead of just instantly doing it, he announces that that is what he intends to do. He is then given the opportunity to consult before using the powers. Consulting and listening never did anyone any harm, and the more serious the powers in question, the greater the need for consultation.
The new clause would also make a provision, currently lacking in the Bill, requiring the Home Secretary to explain exactly what he is doing, and why, to the House of Commons. If any institution in this country is the guardian of the rights of individuals, it is this House, so when the rights of individuals are taken away—censorship does take away rights—there has to be an adequate explanation of which the House approves. I would be perfectly prepared to vote with the Minister if his explanation were adequate, so I do not think that he need be frightened of new clause 3. New clause 3 does not strike at the purpose of the Bill, nor would it remove any powers from the Home Secretary. All it does is improve the decision-making process by allowing time for mature reflection.
Thinking about what reply I might receive, I concluded that I shall be told that I am overly worried, that the Government have no intention of doing what I do late at night, and that, since they are such a sensible Government, they do not need protection from themselves. The reply will be put more politely than I have put it—

Mr. Boateng: It depends on how long he goes on.

Mr. Wilshire: If the hon. Gentleman is not in a good mood, I might go on even longer, and he will have even more to explain. If he is tempted to tell the House that he has absolutely no intention of acting instantaneously, he will take away the only reason that he has for opposing the new clause.

Mr. Viggers: I remind my hon. Friend that the Government have so far not lost a Division, and all that is required is that the Home Secretary snap his fingers, and the terracotta warriors will wander through the Lobbies and the Bill will be passed.

Mr. Wilshire: I am incredibly tempted by that course of action, but I have been trying to be helpful and friendly and not too aggressive to Labour Members, so I shall resist that temptation, although I agree with my hon. Friend.
All I am saying to Ministers is that if they have no intention of acting instantaneously, the new clause will in no way mess up their Bill. If they intend to take a decent amount of time to make proposals, consult, listen and seek our approval, no harm whatsoever will come from accepting the new clause. Knowing the Minister of State to be a kind, reasonable man who wants to be generous on a Thursday afternoon, I am sure that he will support the new clause.

Mr. Tim Collins: I shall be brief because I know that the Minister is anxious to respond to the many excellent points made by Conservative Members during the debate.
I entirely accept the points made by those who have said that they do not question the Government's motivations. I am sure that the Government did not get


up in the morning thinking, "How can we penalise the media?" They are genuinely motivated by a wish to protect children, as are Conservative Members, but we happen to think that the Government are not going about that in a terribly effective way.
Some in the media do, perhaps, question the motivations of a Home Office that, it will be remembered, not too long ago sought an injunction to prevent the publication of a report that turned out to have been leaked by the Home Office. None the less, I shall pass over that point.
I shall concentrate my remarks on comments made to me by Mr. Mike Glover, the editor of the Westmorland Gazette in my constituency. It is a fine newspaper, which is very well dug in with its local community but which none the less has serious concerns about these issues. Mr. Glover's first point is that the problem with any such legislation, whether or not it comes into effect after the Government have made welcome concessions, is that if we prevent the press from publishing accurate information, we do not stop inaccurate information circulating elsewhere. There will still be gossip and people will retail versions of stories in pubs, on street corners and over their neighbour's fence. If we do not publish the accurate information, we may end up damaging children and causing them more difficulty than if we had allowed the press to report the facts straightforwardly and immediately.
Mr. Glover's second point is that the Westmorland Gazette is a fine newspaper and very successful in its area, but it does not have the largest circulation and it is not the best-known publication in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman is doing his best to change that.

Mr. Collins: I am, as the Minister says, doing my best. It follows that that newspaper, like many other regional and local weekly newspapers, does not have at its disposal a large and well-financed legal department that is able to offer the editor a great deal of well-researched legal advice on these very difficult decisions. The restrictions could therefore be particularly onerous for local and regional newspapers—national newspapers probably have large legal departments and do not run the risk of editors being caught out.
I might add that since the debate has so far concentrated on the print media, it is worth noting that we are dealing with measures that will also relate to the broadcast media. A station such as Border Television—the smallest ITV station—in my constituency does not have a large legal department. The pressures on editors that we have described are even more acute for television stations because the time between a story breaking and the time when the broadcast media would expect to put it out could, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said, be a matter of mere minutes. How can stations make accurate decisions on such matters so swiftly?
Mr. Glover's third and final point, which is important, is that the Home Office proposals, which would be aided by new clause 3, would break into the important co-operative relationship between local police forces and

local newspapers. A senior police officer, from outside the immediate area covered by a local journalist or a local newspaper, might go to court to seek an injunction to provide a ban, thus souring relationships that had been built up over many years between a local beat journalist and local beat police officers.
If co-operation between the local media and the local police is broken down, the police may run the risk of losing one of their very important assets in the fight against crime. The Government should use the opportunity granted them under new clause 3 for further reflection to think about that, because some local police officers in my constituency do not think that it is necessarily a terribly good idea to put them in an adversarial relationship with their local media.
I now come to my final point, which I do not believe has been made in the debate. In the age of the internet and the ever greater dissemination of information, successive Governments have found that many of their attempts to impose restrictions on the free flow of information are probably doomed to failure. That problem, encountered by the previous Government, is increasing.
When I said that if accurate information was suppressed, inaccurate information would be circulated by other means, I also said that at the moment such information was probably spread by people talking to each another over the garden fence. In future years, increasingly, even local stories will be posted on the internet. One will never, realistically, be able to stop that.
Between 10 and 20 years ago, the "Spycatcher" case showed that it was impossible to stop information being published outside the geographical jurisdiction of a court or a nation. If the Bill passes unamended by new clause 3, there is a risk that such information could be posted on the internet. Even if it is posted simply between Kendal and Ambleside in my constituency, it could go via a server in the United States, be bounced around Australia and then return to the United Kingdom. Legislation of the type that the Bill represents must take account of these things.
My concern is that if one prevents the publication of accurate stories by the practitioners of professional, researched journalism, a bulge of inaccurate information will erupt elsewhere, which may in time come to be more damaging to children and young people than the accurate stories would have been. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity granted them in new clause 3 to think further about these matters.

Mr. Boateng: This has been a good debate, in which we have given this subject the considered and careful reflection that it deserves. To that extent, it mirrors our debates on this and other subjects in Committee.
The new clause provides for the Secretary of State to give notice of his intentions to make an order to activate the provisions of clause 44 in relation to child victims and witnesses; to publish his reasons for reaching his decision so to do; and to consult the media in whichever way he chooses. It then requires the Secretary of State to wait a further six months before making the order even if, in the interim, Parliament has debated the issue in both Houses and has agreed to the order being made.
That is rather unusual. It is an odd and, in our view, unnecessary way of proceeding. I well understand the spirit in which the hon. Member for Ryedale


(Mr. Greenway) moved the new clause, but we need to get real. It has been suggested by the hon. Members for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) in their careful and considered interventions—later I shall discuss in more detail the arguments made by the hon. Member for Gosport—that the Secretary of State for the Home Department might wake up one morning and, on a whim, bring these provisions into force. That, from two parliamentarians who, with the greatest respect, have been around a bit, demonstrates an ignorance—I believe, a wilful ignorance to enable them to make what they regarded as a good debating point—of the way in which the House works.

Mr. Wilshire: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Boateng: Not at the moment.
The hon. Member for Ryedale knows that one cannot arrange a debate on a draft order in both Houses instantly. The order must be drafted, and then parliamentary time in each House must be arranged—all hon. Members, on both sides of the House, know the difficulties involved in that. Each House must positively resolve in favour of the draft order. Then, and only then, can the order be made. In the event of the procedure being brought into effect by affirmative order, there would be ample opportunity for discussion, for soundings to be taken and for representations to be made.
6 pm
We value enormously the representations that were made by the media in the course of discussion around the clauses. Representations were made through letters from individual Members responding to quite proper communication with their local editors, through national representative bodies, and by individual editors and the Guild of Editors. I can assure the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), who brings to our debate a wealth of experience from the front line, that we have taken on board the concerns and the representations made by the provincial media, which play an enormously important part that I do not underestimate in the local dispensation of justice. They have an interest, which needs to be protected, and their views have been taken into account.
I must not give in to the temptation offered by the hon. Member for Ryedale and others to accept the new clause if, by so doing, I would be fettering the discretion of future Ministers by binding them to any particular course of action. That is why I cannot respond as the hon. Members for Rye dale and for Colchester would have me do, by indicating what they described as our long-term intentions.
As we made clear upstairs—I am glad to affirm it on the Floor of the House today—our intentions are to proceed by recognising the potential of self-regulation to address the issue, as has been demonstrated during the discussion of the clauses. The issue is a serious one—the welfare of children.
I listened with close attention to the contributions of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). As a professional solicitor and a social worker working with children, they bring their experience to bear. I hear them both. I do not

believe that there is any great gulf between them. It is a question of tactics, rather than objective. The objective that we all have in common is to protect children.
After much deliberation and consultation, to which the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and other child protection organisations made an important contribution, that objective led us to go down the road set out in clause 44. We went down that road because of a number of cases that raised concerns about the impact of publicity on children, whether as victims or witnesses—for example, the difficulty for a child of facing his classmates when he has been publicly identified in the local or national press as the son of a wife-beater or baby-killer; or, if he walks to school, the difficulty of having to pass hoardings that identify him publicly with such a tragedy; or the difficulty of being identified as belonging to a family of thieves or drug dealers, even if the investigation did not lead to any charges. That would certainly merit the editor of a local newspaper taking care to consider the consequences of a careless press report. The hon. Members for Colchester and for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) will recognise that that is already the case in terms of the code of practice laid down by the PCC. We are not giving the Executive powers to ban the publication of particular material; we are making sure that the best standards of self-regulation are applied.
As several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Colchester, have said, the best standards are already being applied by the press and we are ensuring that they will be upheld and become more firmly entrenched in the general approach of the media—the broadcast media, national tabloid and broadsheet newspapers and local media—at all levels. We have to get the balance right, and I do not intend to make a distinction between the tabloids and local newspapers, which is the path down which he tempts me.
It is important to make sure that standards are maintained and developed by all, and I cannot and will not fetter the discretion of future Ministers in that regard. We are debating a requirement under clause 64(3)(a) for the Secretary of State to lay a draft of the order before both Houses. The order cannot be made unless the draft is approved by a resolution of each House. Obviously, the Home Secretary of the day will take into account all the circumstances, not just a cause celebre, before determining so to do. I hope that that satisfies hon. Members. It is important to recognise that those recommendations, which were published in June 1998, came from "Speaking Up for Justice". They have been the subject of considerable consultation.
I want to deal briefly with a number of points that were raised. The hon. Members for Gosport and for Bromsgrove asked why 18 was chosen. I understand their question. Our law—be it the Children Act 1989, the Bill or a range of measures concerning the age of consent, one of which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove—varies enormously for reasons of history, of vulnerability and of consistency within a particular area. It also refers to various ages, for example 16, 17 and 18. We chose 18 because it reflects the current limit in the youth court and the current limit in respect of court reporting restrictions. It would not have made sense to have chosen a lower age.
There is a debate to be had about the wider issues and, when hon. Members consider this matter, they need always to have in mind our determination to ensure—

It being four hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], put the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 288.

Division No. 231]
[6.9 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Jenkin, Bernard


Allan, Richard
Key, Robert


Amess, David
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Lansley, Andrew


Beggs, Roy
Leigh, Edward


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Letwin, Oliver


Bercow, John
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Body, Sir Richard
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Boswell, Tim
Llwyd, Elfyn


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Loughton, Tim


Brazier, Julian
Luff, Peter


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Burns, Simon
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Cable, Dr Vincent
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Cash, William
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Chope, Christopher
McLoughlin, Patrick


Clappison, James
Madel, Sir David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Maples, John


Collins, Tim
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Colvin, Michael
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Moss, Malcolm


Cotter, Brian
Norman, Archie


Cran, James
Ottaway, Richard


Curry, Rt Hon David
Page, Richard


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Paterson, Owen


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Pickles, Eric


Duncan, Alan
Prior, David


Evans, Nigel
Robathan, Andrew


Faber, David
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Fearn, Ronnie
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Flight, Howard
St Aubyn, Nick


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Sayeed, Jonathan


Fox, Dr Liam
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Garnier, Edward
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gibb, Nick
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gillen, Mrs Cheryl
Spring, Richard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Guile, Donald
Streeter, Gary


Gray, James
Stunell, Andrew


Green, Damian
Swayne, Desmond


Greenway, John
Syms, Robert


Grieve, Dominic
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hague, Rt Hon William
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Thompson, William


Hancock, Mike
Townend, John


Heald, Oliver
Tredinnick, David


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Trend, Michael


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Tyrie, Andrew


Horam, John
Viggers, Peter


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Wardle, Charles


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Waterson, Nigel


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Wells, Bowen


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Whittingdale, John





Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wilkinson, John



Willetts, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilshire, David
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton—Brown


Woodward, Shaun
and


Yeo, Tim
Mrs. Jacqui Lait.


NOES


Ainger, Nick
Donohoe, Brian H


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Doran, Frank


Alexander, Douglas
Dowd, Jim


Ashton, Joe
Drown, Ms Julia


Atherton, Ms Candy
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Austin, John
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Barnes, Harry
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Barron, Kevin
Efford, Clive


Battle, John
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Beard, Nigel
Ennis, Jeff


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Etherington, Bill


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Fisher, Mark


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Bennett, Andrew F
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Benton, Joe
Flint, Caroline


Best, Harold
Flynn, Paul


Betts, Clive
Follett, Barbara


Blackman, Liz
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Blears Ms Hazel
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Blizzard, Bob
Fyfe, Maria


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Galloway, George


Boateng, Paul
Gapes, Mike


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Gardiner, Barry


Bradshaw, Ben
Gerrard, Neil


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Gibson, Dr Ian


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Browne, Desmond
Godman, Dr Norman A


Buck, Ms Karen
Goggins, Paul


Burden, Richard
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Burgon, Colin
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Grogan, John


Cann, Jamie
Hain, Peter


Caplin, Ivor
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Casale, Roger
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Caton, Martin
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Cawsey, Ian
Hanson, David


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Chisholm, Malcolm
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clapham, Michael
Hepburn, Stephen


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hill, Keith


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hood, Jimmy


Clelland, David
Hope, Phil


Coaker, Vernon
Hopkins, Kelvin


Coffey, Ms Ann
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Coleman, Iain
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Coleman, Tony
Howells, Dr Kim


Connarty, Michael
Hoyle, Lindsay


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Corston, Ms Jean
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cousins, Jim
Hurst, Alan


Cranston, Ross
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Illsley, Eric


Cummings, John
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jenkins, Brian


Darvill, Keith
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Dean, Mrs Janet



Dismore, Andrew



Dobbin, Jim







Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pond, Chris


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pound, Stephen


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Prosser, Gwyn


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Purchase, Ken


Kemp, Fraser
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Rammell, Bill


Khabra, Piara S
Raynsford, Nick


Kilfoyle, Peter
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Rooker, Jeff


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Rowlands, Ted


Lepper, David
Roy, Frank


Leslie, Christopher
Ruddock, Joan


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Ryan, Ms Joan


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Savidge, Malcolm


Linton, Martin
Sawford, Phil


Livingstone, Ken
Sedgemore, Brian


Love, Andrew
Sheerman, Barry


McAvoy, Thomas
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McCabe, Steve
Shipley, Ms Debra


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Short, Rt Hon Clare


McDonagh, Siobhain
Singh, Marsha


Macdonald, Calum
Skinner, Dennis


McDonnell, John
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McFall, John
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McIsaac, Shona
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McNamara, Kevin
Snape, Peter


McNulty, Tony
Soley, Clive


MacShane, Denis
Southworth, Ms Helen


Mactaggart, Fiona
Spellar, John


McWatter, Tony
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McWilliam, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Stinchcombe, Paul


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Stott, Roger


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stringer, Graham


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Martlew, Eric
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Meale, Alan
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Merron, Gillian
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Tipping, Paddy


Mitchell, Austin
Todd, Mark


Moffatt, Laura
Touhig, Don


Moran, Ms Margaret
Trickett, Jon


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Mudie, George
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Mullin, Chris
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Vaz, Keith


Norris, Dan
Vis, Dr Rudi


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Walley, Ms Joan


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Wareing, Robert N


O'Hara, Eddie
Watts, David


Olner, Bill
White, Brian


O'Neill, Martin
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Organ, Mrs Diana
Wicks, Malcolm


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Pearson, Ian
Wills, Michael


Pickthall, Colin
Winnick, David


Pike, Peter L



Pollard, Kerry






Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Wise, Audrey



Worthington, Tony
Tellers for the Noes:


Wray, James
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Mr. Graham Allen.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 2

RESTRICTION ON REPORTS ABOUT PERSONS ACCUSED OR SUSPECTED OF COMMITTING A SEXUAL OFFENCE

'.—(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), no matter relating to any person accused or suspected of committing a sexual offence shall be included in any publication if it is likely to lead to members of the public identifying him as a person involved in the offence unless and until he is convicted.

(2) A court may direct that a person to whom subsection (1) applies may be identified if identification is necessary to secure the arrest of that person or is otherwise in the interests of justice.

(3) A court making a direction pursuant to subsection (2) may give such ancillary directions as it thinks fit, having regard to the interests of justice and the interests of the accused or suspected person'.—[Mr. Greenway.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Greenway: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Previously, whenever the House debated a criminal justice Bill—certainly once in each Parliament—we debated the death penalty. Those days have gone, but I have an inkling that, in future, whenever we debate criminal justice matters, particularly Bills that refer to sex offences, we are likely to discuss the offence of rape, the structure of that offence and the way in which rape trials are conducted.
Part of the reason for that is the fact that the Bill introduces changes that, as the Minister knows, are controversial. We had several constructive debates about them in Committee. In addition, the Home Office is undertaking a detailed research study into the offence of rape, entitled "Question of evidence?: investigating and prosecuting rape in the 1990s".
Earlier this week, some hon. Members who are in the Chamber attended a seminar that the Minister kindly arranged to discuss some of the review's objectives. I make a suggestion to the Minister: will he consider extending that review so that it considers the anonymity of defendants in sex offence cases, particularly those accused of rape? I make the suggestion for several reasons. The first is that the Bill proposes important changes that are clearly designed to protect victims. Clause 34, in particular, provides for an absolute ban on defendants in rape cases cross-examining rape victims. We appreciate why the Government propose making that provision.
We also know from our debates in Committee, and from representations that all hon. Members have received, that the legal profession is divided on the provision. Some lawyers have said that the Government should go further, whereas others—including the Law Society, in stating the official view—have said that it is entirely the wrong thing to do. I dare say that in this debate we shall discover that divisions on the issue are not between, but within, political parties. Victims' interests are unquestionably being provided for in the Bill. I am happy about that,


as the case for such provision has been well made. However, what are the consequences of that provision for the interests of defendants?
Secondly, although the Home Office review will consider all of the issues relating to sex offences, it makes some basic assumptions. I want to deal with one specific assumption, which is that any application of the criminal law must be fair, necessary and proportionate. On the basis of that principle, I want to question whether there is a case for the House again to consider whether, in the interests of fairness and justice, there should be a restoration of defendants' anonymity—particularly in rape cases, but also in cases involving other sexual offences.
The history of the matter is that the Criminal Justice Act 1988 amended the law on anonymity for complainants in rape cases so that anonymity commences when an allegation of rape is made to police and not—as provided in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976—when a defendant is formally accused. The 1988 Act also removed the anonymity of defendants in rape cases.
Subsequently, in 1994 there was a review of the anonymity provision. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), in answer to a written question, confirmed that he was satisfied
that the present law, which affords anonymity for complainants in sexual offence cases, but offers no special protection for defendants, strikes a proper balance between the principle of open justice on the one hand and the need to ensure that victims of sexual offences are encouraged to come forward on the other."—[Official Report, 18 February 1994; Vol. 237, c. 1029.]
The history of the matter is important to our consideration of the provision for two reasons. First, one of the justifications for the changes in the Bill to the conduct of rape trials is that they will encourage more rape victims to come forward—rather than being discouraged from doing so because of the publicity given to one or two notorious cases in which victims were cross-examined, ruthlessly and without any protection from the court, by the alleged assailant.
However, since my right hon. and learned Friend answered that written question, several incidents have caused concern and they prompted me to table the new clause to give the House an opportunity to consider whether we should restore the anonymity of defendants in the interests of fairness and natural justice and to restore the balance that the Bill is disturbing.
6.30 pm
In April 1995, Mark Jackson, a 21-year-old chef, hanged himself. He had been accused of rape by a former girl friend. The Crown court jury at Exeter acquitted him, but the story had reached his home town of Wigan 250 miles away, where the local newspaper headline screamed:
Jilted man, 21, raped ex-girlfriend".
Mark was named and identified for all to see. He could not bear the shame and on the morning of Sunday 9 April his mother found him hanging from the staircase.
Before Christmas 1996, a young man of 25, Dennis Proudfoot, gassed himself in his car. He had been charged with rape and was terrified of the effect of the publicity

on him and his family. A few days after his death his parents received a letter from the girl admitting that he had not raped her.
Those are just two of a catalogue of tragic cases that have occurred in the past few years—since my right hon. and learned Friend last reviewed the issue as Home Secretary—in which accusations that were malicious or that, even if they had substance, ended in acquittal resulted in a defendant's life being ruined. We have been right to explore giving greater protection to victims, but we should also take this opportunity to give consideration to the innocent defendants of rape allegations whose lives and whose families' lives have been ruined by the glare of publicity. One could take up more time with other cases, but I am conscious of the fact that other hon. Members want to speak and we are time limited.
This is not just about men accused of rape seeking some justice through anonymity unless or until they are convicted. Sadly, there are also cases involving women. I understand that on 7 February 1997 the General Medical Council found a female doctor not guilty of indecently assaulting a woman patient. She was subjected to the glare of publicity and her career and personal life have never recovered. I accept that the procedures of the GMC are different from those of the courts, but the principles are the same. Therefore, I felt it right to bring the issue before the House again.
I have one further important point for the Minister. Clearly, this is an exploratory debate, and we do not intend to press the matter to a vote. However, I want the Minister to consider extending the review of how rape and sex offences are investigated and prosecuted, and I would like the anonymity issue to be brought within the purview of the review.
I wish to refer to the incident that prompted me to propose this as a matter for discussion. We have just discussed the reporting of criminal incidents involving young persons under 18 and I have referred to the case of Adam Dent, a 15-year-old who was accused of rape and identified in the press, but not subsequently charged. That case is one of the reasons why the Opposition have agreed to accept the Government's proposal for further curbs on press reporting of criminal incidents to protect the identity of the defendant.
If it is right to give protection and anonymity to a teenager falsely or maliciously accused of rape—as is proposed in clause 44—what is the case for restricting that prohibition only to young men under 18? An accused person aged 17 would be protected, but someone aged 18 would not. Is that a fair, just, balanced or logical conclusion? I am not sure that it is, as is made clear by the two or three cases that I cited which involved young men—maybe a little older than Adam Dent—in similar circumstances.
I wish to drawn the House's attention to the potential scale of the difficulty. In the preamble to the Home Office research study paper, there is an analysis of the attrition process in rape complaints. Although there has been a marked reduction in the number of rape complaints where the cases were subsequently not recorded as crimes, some 25 per cent. of rape allegations are still not recorded as crimes. The most common reason for that is that the complaint was believed to be false or malicious. In over one third of such cases, the complainant withdrew the allegation.
It is perfectly feasible that, in each of those cases, the identity of the persons accused would have been revealed to the press. There could have been some lurid press coverage, with all the consequences of that for that person and his family. We cannot conclude that this is just a tiny problem. It is a significant difficulty and one to which the House—and the Minister—should give serious consideration.

Mr. Beith: We support the aim of the new clause. On Second Reading I asked the Government to consider the issue of anonymity for those accused of sexual offences. Complainants rightly have anonymity. As the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said, it encourages the continuance of a case in an area where there is considerable fall-off, for the understandable reason that it is an extremely harrowing business to add to the awful experience of rape all the trials and tribulations that attend on pursuing a court case.
The case for anonymity of the accused is strong. There are two main reasons for granting it. First, the anonymity of the victim can be undermined when the defendant is known. It is also extremely common in rape cases for it to be possible to deduce who the victim is from other extraneous circumstances, such as the location. Lack of anonymity for the defendant undermines our ability to protect the complainant.
Secondly, the social stigma of a rape accusation is very great and may long survive an acquittal. Reputations can be ruined and marriages destroyed simply by allegations. In cases where the allegation is false and malicious, the accuser has the protection of anonymity, so it is reasonable that in those circumstances, which are different from those in other cases, the defendant should have the same right. Of course, the anonymity would disappear on conviction.
The hon. Member for Ryedale spoke of people who were so traumatised by the allegation that they took their own life, even though it subsequently emerged that no rape had occurred. It is clear that people in such cases are under extreme pressure.
When the Crime and Disorder Bill was in the Lords, my noble Friend Lord Goodhart tabled an amendment to restore the anonymity of defendants in rape cases, which was part of our law for a considerable time. The then Solicitor-General, Lord Falconer, accepted that there was high social stigma and that other problems existed but did not in the end accept the argument. He relied on the fact that openness is a fundamental principle in our justice system and said that as defendants are generally named, there was no reason why those in rape cases should receive special protection. We do not believe that his arguments counter the strong arguments that I have set out.
I hope that the Government will re-examine the issue carefully. There are good reasons for surrounding rape cases with special provisions, because if we did not it would be impossible for many guilty people to be brought to justice, but we are left with a problem about those who are falsely or maliciously accused. Given all the other protections that exist, it would be appropriate to restore the anonymity that our law once provided for defendants in such cases.

Mr. Boateng: The law as it stands offers anonymity for complainants in sexual offences, but it offers no specific

protection for adult defendants. Anonymity for defendants in rape cases was originally introduced in 1976—by a Labour Government, as it happens—and was repealed in 1988—by a Conservative Government, as it happens—following a recommendation by the Criminal Law Revision Committee.
However, this is not a matter for party politics. It is a very difficult and complex issue that goes to the heart of the wider public interest in court proceedings. In an earlier debate, reference was made to the literal meaning of the term "public interest", and to the public interest in having freedom of information about what goes on in court.
6.45 pm
The Criminal Law Revision Committee took the view that people accused of rape should not be singled out for special protection while other defendants could be identified. The Government in 1988 agreed. They were not convinced that rape defendants should be treated differently from defendants against whom a different but equally serious offence is alleged. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 therefore repealed the relevant measure.
I listened with interest to the arguments advanced by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the hon. Member for Ryedale (Greenway). They said that rape carries a special stigma, but people charged with an offence of dishonesty at work or in connection with their business, for example, and who are subsequently acquitted would say that that charge carried both a stigma and a consequence that could threaten their livelihood.
Balancing stigma and post-acquittal consequences involves arguments that are by no means clear-cut. Should people charged with an offence of dishonesty in connection with their business also have protection? The consequences could be just as severe, and the stigma just as great. If they are not to have such protection, why not? Those who propose a return to the law as it was before 1988 must have a convincing response to that dilemma. I am not entirely certain that that has been demonstrated by those who have argued this evening that the 1988 repeal should at least be explored.

Mr. Beith: I remind the Minister that rape differs from other offences in that, in rape cases, anonymity is given to the complainant, which increases the possibility of a false and malicious allegation. The innocent defendant in such a case will ask how it can be right that the person making the allegation can have anonymity, whereas the defendant cannot. In that sense, rape is different from other offences.
Also, I meant to point out that the new clause would allow the court to break anonymity where the interests of justice required it.

Mr. Boateng: I shall come in due course to the powers that the court, by virtue of its inherent jurisdiction, already has in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman maintains that one anonymity should be balanced with another, but the contrary argument has been aired in debates throughout the afternoon, and it is that the public have a right, and an interest, in knowing what goes on in court. That argument must be addressed in determining where the balance of public interest lies.
We are satisfied that the present law strikes a proper balance between the principle of open justice, in which the public has the wider interest, and the very important need to ensure that victims of sexual offences are encouraged to report such crimes. We are not convinced that there is a special case for infringing the principle of open justice regarding defendants in sexual offences cases.
I have nothing but sympathy for the relatives of those in the cases offered by the hon. Member for Ryedale who were driven to suicide by their sense of shame and stigma at the allegations to which they were subject. There is genuine concern that defendants will be deeply distressed by being publicly named in connection with a sexual offence. Even if subsequently found not guilty, people may suffer great distress because of publicity given to their case.
Sexual offences cases are particularly heinous, and proceedings inevitably attract much public interest. However, the same can be said of other serious crimes, such as murder, in which defendants may be acquitted. Allegations of indecent assault or gross indecency can carry enormous stigma. Do those who make the case for change suggest that defendants accused of those offences ought to be protected by the cloak of anonymity?
Though the suggestion is well intentioned, to offer anonymity to defendants in sex cases would encourage others facing serious charges to argue—with some legitimacy—that they face embarrassment and distress and should be protected from press and public attention. We must ensure equality of treatment among defendants.
New clause 2 refers to a person neither accused nor suspected of having committed an offence. After acquittal, a person is neither accused nor suspected, and the new clause would not achieve what the hon. Member for Ryedale wants. We are not satisfied that the reform is justified. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the sex offences review might deal with the point, but it falls outside the review's terms of reference, which are to consider the law, not procedural or evidential issues.
The Contempt of Court Act 1981 goes some way to addressing the concerns expressed by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. If there is a need to avoid publicity, the court has the power to act to avoid a substantial risk of prejudice to proceedings. The court may order postponement of publication of any report of proceedings for whatever period it considers necessary. In addition, where a court decides to withhold a name from the public during a trial, it has the power to prohibit publication entirely.
The courts, mindful of the need to preserve the principle of open justice, have held that that power should not be used merely for the comfort or feelings of the defendant or to enable defendants to avoid unwanted publicity. The powers should be used only in limited circumstances, such as protecting the identities of the young, or in cases in which witnesses might later be exposed to violence or blackmail, or where national security might be prejudiced. The Government agree with that approach.
We have been asked why we should protect only victims. Anonymity for complainants in sex offence cases is designed not only to protect them from hurtful publicity

for their sake alone, but to encourage other victims of sexual assault to report the offence and to co-operate with the prosecution. Those arguments do not apply to the accused. Throughout our deliberations in Committee, it was pointed out—not least by my hon. Friends the Members for Luton, South (Ms Moran), for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), for South Swindon (Ms Drown) and for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes)—that the current rate of attrition is such that nothing must be done to weaken in any way the capacity and confidence of a complainant to come forward and make her allegation; it is normally "her", but it could equally be "him" in relevant cases. The point was also made by other hon. Friends outside the Committee and in the considerable and weighty representations that I received. The point has been made time and again. The House must confront what the attrition rate in rape cases tells us; the proportion of rape cases recorded by the police and resulting in a conviction fell from 24 per cent. in 1985 to 9 per cent. in 1997. That is a matter of the gravest concern.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Is not the lack of balance in the anonymity provisions part of the problem? Since anonymity for the defendant was scrapped, the suggestion has been lurking in the courtroom, in almost every rape case, that a false allegation may have been made under the cloak of anonymity. A man's life may be ruined because of that anonymity. If both parties have anonymity, that suggestion cannot lurk in the background at court. I suggest that that would make a difference.

Mr. Boateng: We hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I want to make it crystal clear why it is so important that the special position of the complainant should be recognised in law. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. However, if the complainant is in the same position as the defendant, that does not hold up the complainant's special position as deserving the special measure that the complainant should not be subjected to publicity.

Mr. Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Boateng: I am not able to give way; the House wants to proceed. The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech.
I have listened carefully to the arguments, but, for the reason that I have just given, we are not able to accept the new clause. I hope that the hon. Member for Ryedale will not press it to a vote.

Mr. Greenway: The Minister's response was predictable. In fairness to him, I do not mean that as a criticism. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) pointed out, whenever the matter has been raised in recent years, Ministers—in Labour or Conservative Governments—have given the same response. However, there is more to the matter than the Minister accepts.
The Minister asks whether the stigma and consequence of an unfounded rape allegation is different from that of any other crime. For two reasons, there is a significant difference. The first reason is that, in a case of rape or serious sexual offence, the victim has complete anonymity. In the case of virtually all other serious crimes, such anonymity does not exist.
If, for example, someone alleges that another person has stolen or embezzled money or property, and if the person concerned is acquitted, a stigma will be attached to the person who made the allegation, because—presumably—that person will have been found not to have told the complete truth. That in itself deters people from making false allegations of criminal offences: those who would make such allegations know that, if the case ends in an acquittal, it is they who will be made to look foolish and dishonest.

7 pm

Mr. Heald: It is noticeable that, since the scrapping of the anonymity of the defendant, the number of rape cases that have been successfully pursued and have resulted in conviction has fallen dramatically. Might not one reason for that be that the point is not lost on the jury that the person making the complaint is doing so anonymously, and is risking nothing? I am all in favour of that—I think that there should be an anonymity for the victim—but there is an unfairness, in that the defendant, who is not guilty at the time of the trial, has had his reputation ruined for life and, at the end of the day, it may turn out that the allegation is false. That unfairness is in the background of juries' thinking, and it is causing many of the problems.

Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We all accept that anonymity for the victim is an important prerequisite: it encourages women to report rapes or other sexual or violent offences, and I have no doubt that that is the correct approach. However, anonymity has a number of unfortunate consequences. For instance, as my hon. Friend says, someone who intends to make a malicious complaint has nothing to lose. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed made that point too.

Caroline Flint: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, although the woman's name may not be printed in the press, she has to stand up in open court, facing the person whom she has accused, in front of the jury, the judge and court officials, and make her case?

Mr. Greenway: All that is true, and is taken as read; but it does not explain another fact to which I was about to refer. The research paper that I mentioned earlier gives reasons other than those given by the Minister for the fact that the attrition rate is so high, and the fact that so few rape allegations result in convictions. One reason is that allegations are subsequently withdrawn—a factor that is not a feature of other criminal offences.
The Minister asked us, quite openly, to give a reason for the fact that rape and other sexual offences should be different. I think that we have made our case. The stigma, and the consequences, are different in the case of rape—not just because of the anonymity involved, but because it appears for some reason that an acquittal, or the withdrawal of an allegation, does not result in anything like the prominence in the press that was given to the original allegation. There is always the lingering suspicion that the acquittal was not justified, or that there was some truth in the allegation but not enough evidence to sustain the prosecution.

Mr. Heald: No smoke without fire.

Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend states the reality that the House must face.

Mr. Heald: I am sorry to exploit my hon. Friend's good will, but I have become interested in the debate. Does he agree that the unbalanced position on anonymity has two bad effects? First, it is bad for the defendant if he is acquitted and people say that there is no smoke without fire. Secondly, it undermines the case of women who have been wronged and treated appallingly, because in court, they are undermined by the ever-present suggestion that they are making their accusation with the benefit of anonymity, while the man's reputation is on the line. That undermines cases that should be pressed home successfully to a conviction.

Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend tempts me with a road down which I do not wish to go, because I do not want to dispel the spirit that existed within the Committee and encompassed some of the Government Members. However, he makes his own point extremely well.
We shall not have an opportunity to discuss this important issue again for a while, but time is pressing and in an effort to be brief, I missed out a page of my notes. One of the important points on that page is the one made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed—that in rape cases, the lack of anonymity for the accused, or the defendant, or the alleged perpetrator leads increasingly to the anonymity of the victim being breached and her identity being disclosed.
The fundamental reason for that development is clear in the research: it is that the number of stranger rape cases as a proportion of all rape allegations is falling, but that the number of so-called acquaintance, intimate or date rape cases has increased substantially. Therefore, there is a far greater prospect that, by publishing the identity of the alleged perpetrator, the identity of the victim will be disclosed. It seems logical to conclude that, if the priority is to give protection and anonymity to a victim, any matter that undermines that anonymity should be a matter of concern for the House, and that some adjustment to the law is justified.
When he referred to the Home Office review of sex offences, the Minister said that the anonymity issue was outwith the scope of that review. That surprises me, because the document given to us at the seminar that the Minister kindly and helpfully arranged sets out the terms of reference for the review. They are:
To review the sex offences in the common and statute law of England and Wales, and make recommendations that will: provide coherent and clear sex offences which protect individuals, especially children and the more vulnerable, from abuse and exploitation".
I accept that the anonymity issue is not covered by that, or by the second requirement—that the recommendations should
enable abusers to be appropriately punished".
However, I suggest that the anonymity issue is covered by the third strand, which is that the recommendations should
be fair and non-discriminatory in accordance with the ECHR and the Human Rights Act.
Even setting aside those cases in which a trial results in acquittal, and concentrating only on those cases in which the allegation is subsequently withdrawn and the


woman admits that she was not telling the truth, I put it to the Minister that it is not fair and not non-discriminatory to give anonymity to rape and sex offence victims, but not to people who are, in many cases, maliciously and falsely accused. There is a human rights dimension to the question of anonymity for those who are falsely accused of rape and sexual offences.
It will be clear that I do not seek to press this matter further. Early Thursday evening, when the House is about to adjourn for the week, may be an unfortunate time to have this debate. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) laughs, but although I do not think that we shall have a long Third Reading debate, there was a statement that lasted an hour, and the Government have known for days that it would be made today.
The House ought to return to this issue. The other place will do so. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed for his support, and I ask the Minister to think again about including the issue in the important review of rape that his Department is currently undertaking. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17

WITNESSES ELIGIBLE FOR ASSISTANCE ON GROUNDS OF FEAR OR DISTRESS ABOUT TESTIFYING

Mr. Boateng: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 13, line 24, leave out 'section' and insert 'subsection'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 5.

Mr. Boateng: The amendments are the direct result of representations made to the Government by my hon. Friends the Members for Luton, South (Ms Moran), for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), for South Swindon (Ms Drown), for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons) and for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), among others. They are designed to ensure that all sexual offence complainants will be eligible for help unless they say that they do not want to be eligible. Every sexual offence is likely to be distressing and frightening. It represents an assault of the most intimate kind and, if the complainant and defendant know one another, a betrayal of trust. In Committee, I agreed to consider whether complainants in sexual offence cases should have a greater degree of certainty that they will be deemed eligible for assistance. After consideration, I agree that the particular nature of sexual offence cases and the problem of attrition in those cases demand that we give sexual offence complainants greater certainty. They should have the certainty that they cannot be judged ineligible for help unless they do not want help. The debate in Committee was enormously significant. It was enhanced by the representations made by the hon. Members whom I have mentioned, not forgetting the representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), who brought the point home with particular force and has used her

considerable influence to bring about this outcome. I hope that in the light of that, hon. Members on both sides of the House will give the amendments a fair wind.

Ms Julia Drown: The amendment gives the complainant the strongest possible presumption that special measures should be adopted unless the witness does not want them. As one of those who have argued for the strengthening of the clause, I welcome the amendment. The amendment allows the strongest possible assumption, but not an absolute automatic right to special measures because the judge could decide that none of the special measures would help the witness. The intention of the clause is that it would be incredibly unusual for someone not to be given at least a screen, but it still allows for no special measures to be applied. A justification for that is the European convention on human rights, which we have now incorporated into British law. Article 6 of that convention says that everyone is entitled to a fair trial.
7.15 pm
I am not aware of any authority or previous ruling that has laid down that screens—which we may take to be a minimum protection—breach article 6 by acting as an impediment to effective cross-examination. As my hon. Friend the Minister will be fully aware, the European convention on human rights allows for a margin of appreciation in the interpretation of its provisions by signatory states. Some leading lawyers believe that that margin would allow the Home Secretary to permit screens in court under article 6. Has counsel's opinion been obtained on that issue? If so, what was the advice?
Given that the minimum of a screen as a special measure would not restrict a fair trial of the defendant, I would want the Government to go further even than they have by tabling amendment No. 5. I should like them to say that a screen would be the minimum that they would expect for a witness in a rape trial.
Guidance would need to be given to judges, to say that the minimum of a screen does not prevent other measures—such as clearing the court—from being offered, but that the screen should be regarded as a minimum protection and that, if the witness requests further protections, the court must give the matter serious thought.
The huge advantage of setting the automatic right to at least a screen would be that we could then offer potential witnesses some certainty. They could be told from day 1, when they walk into the police station to report the crime, that if the case went to court, they would not have to face the accused if they did not want to. An automatic right for complainants to be afforded such protection would be better for defendants, too. If in all cases the judge has the ultimate say over whether special measures are appropriate, so that particular measures are allowed only in specific cases, it may be difficult to prevent juries from forming the belief that there is something especially sinister about the defendant in a case where a special measure has been allowed. If there is an automatic right to special measures, juries can be advised that the use of the special measures has nothing to do with any special features of the case or of the defendant.
Undoubtedly, the law needs to give better protection to witnesses. Some victims of rape say that they cannot face even the prospect that they might have to face their


attacker again in court, and that they would prefer to let the attacker go free than to risk going through that experience. Amendment No. 5 would obviously help those victims.
Does my hon. Friend the Minister believe that, if amendment No. 5 is passed and if sufficiently strong guidance is given to judges, he will be able to give men and women rape victims the assurance that they need to enable them to report crimes of rape and face going into the witness box?
I should like further clarification. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister confirmed that complainants would not usually attend pre-trial hearings, but that in rare situations, that could happen. I then asked how complainants would be protected at pre-trial hearings in the unlikely, but possible, event that both they and the defendant turned up in the same room. I was very pleased to hear in Committee that a judge would have the power to prevent a witness from having to be in the same room as the defendant in such situations. However, can my hon. Friend assure the House that he will give judges sufficiently strong guidance to ensure that they exercise that power when the witness wishes her or him to do so?
Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the protections that, rightly, he has included in clause 41 to restrict the use of sexual history evidence in trials can also be extended, via the guidance or via further legislation, to apply to pre-trial hearings, too, so that victims know with certainty that they will have all the protections that the Government envisage through all parts of the justice system? One reason why special measures are so necessary is that, sometimes in rape cases and all too often in the past, sexual history evidence has been brought into rape trials. It could have been thought that fewer victims would need special measures if the Bill had outlawed all inappropriate sexual history evidence.
However, many of us now accept that we cannot do everything that we had hoped for in the Bill in terms of limiting sexual history evidence, which makes screens and the strong presumption in favour of screens as proposed in amendment No. 5 even more crucial. The barrier to our making as much progress on the matter now as would be desirable is that the rules on the admissibility of evidence must be framed in the light of the definition of rape contained in the Sexual Offences Act 1956. Understandably, we cannot have two inconsistent laws.
The strong presumption in favour of screens, as proposed in the amendment, will encourage rape victims to come forward. I welcome the moves to limit sexual history evidence, but they cannot give complainants the complete assurance that they will not subjected in court to humiliating or intimidating questions about their sexual history. Many women have described the experience of a trial in which they have had to go through their sexual history in intimate detail as a humiliation which made them feel as though they had been raped again.
We must recognise that however much witnesses are protected from unreasonable questioning about their sexual history, it is inevitable that, in many rape cases, witnesses will have to give intimate and detailed sexual evidence. That is bound to be the case when the defence is that intercourse did not take place. We should not forget, therefore, that the experience is bound to be traumatic and intrusive for the complainant. We are discussing ways in which that trauma and intrusion can be reduced, but it

cannot be removed entirely. I have discussed with my hon. Friends the many police officers, lawyers and women's refuge workers who told us that if they had been raped, they would not take their case to court. Their testimony is eloquent.
The strong presumption in favour of special measures is relevant. Although the Bill goes some way towards reducing the admissibility of sexual history evidence, particularly in cases where the defence is arguing that the complainant consented, the Bill cannot rule out inappropriate sexual history in all rape trials. That cannot be done because the definition of rape currently on the statute book allows as a defence the argument that the defendant had an honest belief in consent, even if he now admits that the victim did not consent, or worse—that the defendant had an honest, but unreasonable belief in consent. It is incredible that such a defence should be available. We must try to make sensible laws about what constitutes reasonable evidence and appropriate special measures in a rape trial. On discovering the possible defence of an honest, but unreasonable belief that the victim consented, I felt rather like Alice stepping through the looking-glass and moving into a world of make-believe.
However, even for this defence, through the Bill, we have introduced restrictions on sexual history evidence. Those restrictions are that refusing to give such evidence could lead the jury to an unsafe conclusion, that the main purpose of the evidence must not be to undermine the victim's credibility, and that the evidence must relate to specific instances of sexual behaviour of the complainant. That is as far as we can go while such a ridiculous defence is available. That makes this amendment essential.
I should be interested to hear whether my hon. Friend the Minister believes that the Bill introduces further restrictions, in addition to those that I outlined. We wanted to reduce the horrific cases in which inappropriate sexual history is brought out in court and widely reported, which deters other victims from reporting rapes. In Committee, we discussed a case in which it was pointed out in court that in the past, the witness had had sex with an Asiatic, and that the accused happened to be an Asiatic, and another case in which the witness was reminded that she had had sex with a man older than herself who was of the same age as the defendant. It is understandable that complainants would want the court to be cleared if such evidence were presented.
Although such evidence will now be ruled irrelevant, it could be relevant if it related to specific instances of sexual behaviour and the defendant claimed an unreasonable, but honest belief that the complainant had consented. The defendant could argue that he believed stupidly, but honestly that because the complainant had had consensual sex with a similar person, she consented to sex with the defendant on the occasion in question. The Minister said in Committee that offensive and irrelevant questions should not be allowed in our courts, but under the Bill, it will still be possible to present similar evidence. That further emphasises the need for the amendment. The Bill is intended to overrule the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Viola in 1982, which argued that a complainant's promiscuity was relevant to consent—a ridiculous judgment. The overruling would apply to consent, but not to belief in consent, as a defence. Hon. Members will agree that victims in such situations have a strong right to special measures.
I should be delighted to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister that the Bill precludes specific instances of sexual history being brought out to justify cases such as the three to which I have referred, in which case victims might not have to ask for all the particular special measures that we are making available through the clause. If so, surely we are changing the law of evidence in anticipation of how we want the law to change. That is precisely what my hon. Friend told us in Committee that we cannot do. As long as the defence of unreasonable, but honest belief in consent remains, unreasonable evidence may be admitted, which makes special measures all the more important.

Mr. Llwyd: A defence of that nature—the subjective test—exists in relation to many other offences. It is nothing new, it is not peculiar to this offence and it does not seem to create any injustice in any other context.

Ms Drown: We are particularly concerned about the attrition rate in rape cases and the fact that so many vulnerable people will not come forward because of the sort of evidence that has been brought forward in the past.
I acknowledge that the Government are tackling the larger problem by reviewing the definition of rape. That is desperately needed, because we will not be able to give women victims confidence that the law will always protect them until unreasonable belief in consent is removed as a defence from the law of the land. For that reason, special measures are even more necessary, although in a sense we are putting the cart before the horse by considering special measures and evidence first rather than the offences.
The problem with unreasonable belief in consent is not the only reason why we need those special measures. Even though there are special protections in clause 41, there is still a need for special measures, such as clearing the court or being able to give evidence from behind a screen. Under subsection (3)(b), a person might have to talk about
sexual behaviour…at or about the same time as the event",
which makes special measures necessary. We need to consider whether that is the best way of protecting witnesses. It has been suggested that we should use special measures rather than look in more detail at sexual history, but we should look in more detail at the root of the issues relating to sexual history and consider whether we are doing all we can to make sure that guilty people are brought to trial. For example, clause 41(3)(b) concerns anything that happened around the time of the event and whether such events are relevant to consent, which is what the Government would argue. All those things could be brought in under rebuttal, which few people have mentioned, or under a restriction that is used in many other countries: sexual behaviour evidence should be limited to that between the defendant and the complainant.
In Committee, the Minister gave the example that it would be relevant to know that a couple had been seen kissing in a doorway or on a park bench—or, to take another example, that they had had consensual sex—an hour before the alleged incident took place. However, we were not given an example of behaviour with anyone other than the complainant which would be relevant to

consent, so should not the Government be considering that as at least an added restriction to subsection (3)(b)? Can they justify subsection (3)(c)(ii), under which any previous, strikingly similar sexual history is relevant to consent?
The Government have rightly and strongly said that, in general, people do not decide to consent to sex with anyone on any occasion. People give consent on separate occasions to a certain person and the law should uphold that. If such examples are still to be brought in, we can see the case for the amendment: victims need those special measures. Subsection (3)(c)(ii) has been justified by some peculiar examples. Baroness Mallalieu has referred to a sexual history involving a "Romeo and Juliet" balcony scene followed by sex. In a trial, that would be considered to be relevant to consent if the rape was alleged to have occurred in similar circumstances. If that is to be allowed, an amendment to clause 17 such as this is definitely necessary.
7.30 pm
We need further scrutiny of these issues. The Government have gone a long way towards limiting sexual history evidence and providing better protection for rape victims. Nevertheless, until we review current sexual offences, we shall not be able to give proper protection to women and men victims of rape. The Government need to ensure that the sexual offences review concludes as soon as possible, and to get rid of the honest, but unreasonable belief in consent defence. Then we need to return to these clauses, and ensure that all irrelevant sexual history is excluded from trial and that victims can be guaranteed special measures protections that they request.

Mr. Bob Russell: The amendments are to be welcomed. If I may, I shall draw the Minister's attention to the fifth sitting of the Committee when I asked:
Would it not be to the advantage of all concerned if, when the victim requested special measures, they were granted? Otherwise, the victim might well have to go through the equivalent of a pre-trial hearing."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 17 June 1999, c.121.]
In reply the Minister said "No" and explained that answer. Do I now understand that his answer to my request of last month is now yes?

Lorna Fitzsimons: I wish to put on record how important this amendment is and how welcome the Government's new approach has been, in particular that of the Minister and his ministerial team. He has been open to people like myself with no legal background whatever and has helped us understand the problems in other bits of the law that we, as interested parties, face—specifically in the application of special measures. We acknowledge that the Government recognise the special needs of the most vulnerable people, to which special measures he is attending, and realise that we cannot do everything in this Bill.
The achievement of the women on the Committee needs to be put on record. They and the ministerial team have been working round the problems of our awful legal system where witnesses do not count because what matters is what can be proved in a court of law. Ordinary people cannot understand it. We have pushed back the boundaries.
We need to look at the review of sexual offences and other bits of the law, such as the definition of belief. I welcome the Government's approach and believe that it will achieve a lot for the most vulnerable whose voice is not heard at present.

Mr. Boateng: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons) for those kind remarks and echo them in relation to the Bill team who have been responsible for giving us the back-up that they have on these amendments and responding to the points made by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee during the debate.
It has been important, and it has guided our work as a Bill Committee, to determine that the courts should be required to put at the heart of their consideration of the matters before them the needs and views of individual witnesses, taken on board and understood in detail, in terms of the court determining the appropriate response to make sure that witnesses can give of their best evidence. This is all about ensuring that witnesses give of their best evidence because it is when witnesses have been able to present that best evidence to the court and the jury have had an opportunity to understand and appreciate it that the interests of justice are most likely to be served. The interests of justice are best served by our addressing the causes of attrition in a way that is based on research and developing best practice, and ensuring both through primary legislation and guidance to the court how best to give complainants the confidence and reassurance that they so desperately need to go forward with these prosecutions. Hence it is important to ensure that a menu of measures is available to the courts, so that they can consider which one will best meet a particular witness's needs. We intend to proceed down that route, rather than impose an artificial norm to be followed unless a witness protests.
Some rape complainants may find a screen helpful. In other cases, the court may decide that the witness should be kept out of the court altogether so as to be able to give of their best evidence, and that a video or live link would be better. In those cases, rather than a screen, the first thing the court should consider is a video or live link. Having taken into account the needs of the witness in some detail in the context of what is occurring in the court, the judge should be able to put those special measures in place.
The amendments ensure that sex offence complainants have confidence that they will get the understanding of the court to which they are entitled, and we must back that up with guidance. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) that guidance will be forthcoming: it will be clear and focused on the needs of witnesses to enable them to give of their best evidence.
The Government have heard the representations of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) and those of my hon. Friends in Committee, which is why we have come to this conclusion. We believe that it is important for the courts to retain proper control of how evidence is given at trial, and to strike a balance between the needs of the witnesses and the interests of a fair trial. That is necessary to accord with our European Court of Human Rights obligations. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon, we are quite satisfied that the measures that we are introducing are entirely in

accordance with our ECHR obligations. The court will be able to consider the views of all parties, including the party calling the witness, who may take a different view from that of the witness. Having borne in mind the totality of all the circumstances, it will be able to come to a proper conclusion.
In her wide-ranging speech, my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon raised the wider issues around consent and belief in consent. I hear what she says, and note her vigorous critique of the law of rape as it now stands. There will be varying views in the House about how best to constitute the offence of rape. I am glad to say that the Government are determined to take an inclusive approach by reaching out and giving everyone an opportunity to make representations, hence the importance of the sex offences review. I am delighted that so many hon. Members availed themselves of the opportunity that I gave them earlier this week to attend that seminar, and I am grateful to them for doing so. There will need to be more debate and discussion.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 5, in page 14, line 2, leave out from 'offence' to end of line 5 and insert
'(or to that offence and any other offences), the witness is eligible for assistance in relation to those proceedings by virtue of this subsection unless the witness has informed the court of the witness' wish not to be so eligible by virtue of this subsection.'.—[Mr. Boateng.]

It being five and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 21

SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO CHILD WITNESSES

Amendment made: No. 6, in page 17, line 35, leave out `the witness' and insert—

'(a) any cross-examination of the witness otherwise than by the accused in person, and
(b) any subsequent re-examination.'.—[Mr. Boateng.]

Clause 22

EXTENSION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 21 TO CERTAIN WITNESSES OVER 17

Amendment made: No. 7, in page 18, line 27, leave out 'qualifying'.—[Mr. Boateng.]

Clause 30

AIDS TO COMMUNICATION

Amendment made: No. 8, in page 24, line 5, after `disorder' insert 'or other impairment'.—[Mr. Boateng.]

Clause 66

CORRESPONDING PROVISIONS FOR NORTHERN IRELAND

Amendment made: No. 9, in page 48, line 12, at end insert—
'(3) Until the day appointed under section 3 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 for the commencement of Parts II and III of that Act this section shall have effect with the substitution for subsection (1) of the following—


(1) An Order in Council under paragraph 1(1)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (legislation for Northern Ireland in the interim period) which contains a statement that it is made only for purposes corresponding to the purposes of any of the relevant provisions of this Act—

(a) shall not be subject to paragraph 1(4) and (5) of that Schedule (affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament), but
(b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."'.—[Mr. Boateng.]

Schedule 4

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 10, in page 74, line 29, leave out from beginning to 'substitute' in line 30 and insert—
'22.—(1) Section 51 (intimidation etc. of witnesses, jurors and others) is amended as follows.
(2) For subsections (1) to (3) (offences of intimidating, and of doing or threatening harm to, witnesses etc.)'.

No. 11, in page 75, line 9, at end insert—

'(3) In subsection (8) (presumption in proceedings for offence under subsection (2))—
(a) for "he did or threatened to do an act falling within paragraph (a) within the relevant period" substitute "within the relevant period—

(a) he did an act which harmed, and was intended to harm, another person, or
(b) intending to cause another person fear of harm, he threatened to do an act which would harm that other person,

and that he did the act, or (as the case may be) threatened to do the act,"; and
(b) after "to have done the act" insert "or (as the case may be) threatened to do the act".'.—[Mr. Boateng.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Straw: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill reflects our belief that the function of the criminal justice system goes far wider than reaching the right decision about a defendant's guilt or innocence and meteing out punishments to the guilty. Every part of that system has a role to play in reducing crime and the fear of crime. At the same time, the way in which the system deals with defendants, victims, witnesses and the wider community can help to foster a sense of a tolerant and just society, where rights and responsibilities are properly balanced.
The purpose of a trial is to reach a just conclusion on the defendant's guilt or innocence. In our jurisdiction, we use an adversarial system to achieve that aim. The Bill does not change that, but we must never forget that that system is a means to an end, not an end in itself. We should always keep open the way in which the forensic part of the system operates, aiming to improve its efficiency and effectiveness and to ensure, so far as humanly possible, not only that no innocent person is convicted, but that the guilty never go free and—it has been a defect in the system in the current century and in a good part of the previous one—that the individual victim and the community, which is always an indirect victim of crime, are given proper dignity and centrality at the heart of the criminal justice system.
Part I further takes forward our pledges to reduce youth offending. As we said in greater detail at the beginning of today's proceedings, we do not believe that the courtroom and the drama that it creates, where the young defendant is often a spectator, is conducive to a full investigation of a young person's offending—once guilt has been admitted or, indeed, determined—or to a full investigation of the crime's underlying causes, which must involve the young person and must bring in his or her parents, the victims and the wider community.
Therefore, as we have discussed at some length, the Bill separates the determination of guilt and the sentencing process in that investigation. Sentencing will be conducted by way of referral to a youth offender panel, where we will aim—the experience of Scotland has well illustrated what can happen—to achieve the investigation of the young person's offending and its underlying causes without the direct involvement of lawyers.
That is not to besmirch the reputation of a fine profession, of which the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and many other hon. Members, including me, are proud to be members. Indeed, on some occasions, I think that membership of the legal profession might be a prior qualification for becoming an hon. Member.

Mr. Beith: There are too many lawyers.

Mr. Straw: There are never too many. I am glad to underline my affection for my profession. That said, there are jobs for which lawyers are well qualified, which are to do with the law and forensic examination of guilt or innocence, and jobs for which they are not particularly qualified and for which their qualifications may not be appropriate. They arise at the point where guilt has been determined and the issue is how to get the young offender to deal with his offending behaviour. It is interesting that, in Scotland, at that point, lawyers are not involved in Scotland's youth offender panels.
Part II of the Bill recognises the fact, which we sometimes forget, that the trial process involves more people than the defendant, and that trials could not proceed without witnesses, not least witnesses for the prosecution. However, for some witnesses the circumstances of the case, their own situation or the nature of their evidence makes the experience of giving evidence so difficult for them that their ability to provide that evidence, or their co-operation with a case, is affected. The intimidation of witnesses is a mounting problem in our society, not only in large and very serious cases, but in cases that the criminal calendar may regard as smaller cases involving relatively minor offences—which, nevertheless, are profoundly important to those who have been affected by them.
The Bill therefore provides practical measures to help such witnesses to come forward and give evidence at trial. Moreover, it implements our manifesto pledges to provide greater protection to victims in rape and sexual offence trials, and to all witnesses, whatever the nature of the trial, who are subject to intimidation. The Bill provides ways of protecting witnesses from some of the more distressing aspects of the trial process, while preserving defendants' rights.
There has been much discussion about the balance of the provisions, particularly on protections in the reporting of cases involving juvenile defendants to age 18. There has also been very considerable discussion—I have no need detain the House—[Interruption.] I am very glad to have that approbation, from whichever quarter it came: I shall ask the Whip to take his or her name.

Mr. Bob Russell: It was the Whip.

Mr. Straw: The Whip is a non-lawyer. There was a time when Whips on the Treasury Bench understood their duty, which was to ensure that Ministers' wishes were complied with and, in return for a healthy salary, to keep quiet at all times.
As my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have explained, restrictions on child victims and witnesses before trial will be implemented if, after Royal Assent, we continue to be as concerned as we are about children being damaged by the nature of the reporting. However, I have good reason to hope that our concerns may well be allayed. Although we shall continue to keep the matter under review, it will, regardless, be possible to implement the restrictions only after a debate and vote in their favour in both Houses.
I am very grateful for the level of consideration that the Bill has received, both in the other place and in this House. I should also like to express my appreciation for the positive and constructive contribution made by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and his colleagues, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and his colleagues.
The Bill has, quite rightly, been subject to argument. However, we have always—certainly since I have been at the Home Office—sought to recognise that, although Ministers make propositions to this House and to the other place, it is rare for proposals to be incapable of improvement. They have been improved by the House and the Committee doing their job, and I am grateful to hon. Members who have contributed to that process.
The Bill is designed to deliver two key manifesto commitments: reduction in youth crime, and greater protection for sex-offence complainants and intimidated witnesses. Taken together with the rest of our crime-reduction programme, the Bill should help to rebuild the confidence that our citizens should have in the criminal justice system, which exists to serve them and exercise justice on their behalf.

Mr. Greenway: I am grateful for the Home Secretary's remarks about our approach to the Bill. We promised on Second Reading that we would give it constructive scrutiny. I am grateful to the Minister of State for his comment that our contribution has been constructive. I believe that we have also been comprehensive. We have managed to make speedy progress, but we have looked carefully at all aspects of the Bill, even though at times, as now, it has been something of a solo effort on my part.
The Home Secretary has clearly not acquainted himself with all the Committee Hansard reports, because his comments about lawyers are in stark contrast to what the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East

(Mr. Howarth), said in Committee. When we approached the more contentious and complex issues in part II relating to the conduct of rape trials, he agreed that not being a lawyer was an advantage. There is a reshuffle coming, but I felt that, for the benefit of all of us who are not lawyers, I ought to remind the Home Secretary that we can make a valid and important contribution, as I believe that we have done.
We broadly support the Bill and agree with its objectives but we have some concerns, which have been well rehearsed in Committee and today. There is a lack of flexibility on youth justice, but we shall see how matters progress. We also have concerns about the Bill's impact on the immediate problem of youth offending in our communities. Like the measures in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the youth justice provisions in the Bill will be subject to extensive piloting. No one is saying that making sure that they get it right is not the way for the Government to proceed, but they must accept that that approach means that there is little immediate relief in prospect for communities throughout Britain blighted by the petty crime, vandalism and rowdy behaviour of youngsters. Even where the plans are piloted, only first-time offenders who plead guilty will be sent to a youth offender panel.
It is clear from other exchanges that we have had—not on this Bill—that there is still scant evidence that the Government's other measures are having much impact on persistent young offenders. I am sure that the Home Secretary expects me to tell him that we shall make sure that when, in the usual fanfare of publicity, the Government announce the pilot areas for the youth offender panel reforms, we shall make sure that the rest of the country is aware that, for all the Government's talk about getting tough on the young thugs who terrorise housing estates and the wider community, the Government's plans are for the very long term and there is very little prospect of immediate relief. If our roles were reversed I am sure that the Home Secretary would be assuring me of the same.
We welcome the provisions on vulnerable and intimidated witnesses and we remain profoundly committed to a criminal justice system that encourages victims and witnesses to report crimes and enables them to give evidence easily and without intimidation. Although we have some questions about whether it was right to remove all discretion from the court on unrepresented defendants, we believe that it is right to protect victims, particularly victims of rape, from cross-examination by the defendant.
On evidence of previous sexual behaviour, we agree that some changes in this area were long overdue, and that questions that were merely designed to embarrass, humiliate or blacken the complainant in the eyes of the jury should not be permitted.
We have residual concerns—as will have been evident from the debate on new clause 2—about the clause 44 reporting restrictions. That is one element of the Bill about which I hope we have heard the last, and we hope that the order never sees the light of day. I still think that the Bill is deficient in that regard, but no matter. There is at least a mechanism within the Bill to give some comfort to the media. I hope that their confidence in that does not turn out to be misplaced.

Mr. Beith: We support the Bill, and we have long campaigned for a fundamental reform of the youth justice system. We think that the Bill is an important step in that direction. Seventy per cent. of adults with a conviction started offending as young offenders. We have to address that problem of young offenders, and the Bill—particularly in its attempts to deal with first offenders among young offenders—is a valuable step in that direction.
We welcome the second part of the Bill, particularly the proposals on complainants and witnesses in sexual offence cases. I strongly welcome the clauses that provide that defendants charged with rape or other sexual offences who choose to conduct their own defence, as is their right, may not cross-examine the alleged victim. Recent cases have made it clear that that provision was necessary, and I strongly welcome its inclusion in the Bill.
The only aspect of the Bill about which we had serious doubts was the third part, dealing with reporting. The Government responded to our concerns and those of others, but they have taken what we considered to be a blunt instrument to be used against responsible sections of the press as well as irresponsible sections and, instead of refining it, have put it in a cupboard. It can be got out when they want it, but it is still a blunt instrument. If the Government attempt to bring in the orders, it will be unsatisfactory, as we will not be able to amend the provisions—it will be take it or leave it. That is the weakest feature of the Bill, and I hope that we will not see those powers brought in. That is one drawback in a Bill that we generally welcome and that we will support.

Caroline Flint: May I say how much I and my colleagues welcome the Bill, which is historic and is about progress?
We welcomed the assurances given in Committee, as well as the further support to be given to victims of domestic violence and adults with learning disabilities—something that has not been discussed this afternoon.
Legislation is only as good as those who implement it. The Bill came about because the provisions that were made the last time the matter was discussed were not being implemented in the spirit in which they were discussed. We have been tackling that, and I was pleased to receive assurances from Ministers on that.
In Committee, we received two assurances. The first was that we must give training to those judges who are in charge of implementing the legislation. The other was that, as soon as this Bill becomes law, there will be effective monitoring and evaluation of the law. We do not want to wait three or four years to call for a review, and we must make sure that the law is monitored and evaluated as it is implemented. In that way, we can make sure that there is good law.
I thank the ministerial team for the way in which they have presented the Bill and worked with Committee members.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

EC PRELIMINARY DRAFT BUDGET FOR 2000

That this House takes note of European Union Documents Nos. COM(99)200, the Preliminary Draft Budget (PDB) of the European Communities for 2000, and SEC(99)600, the Commission's Overview of the PDB; and supports the Government's efforts to maintain budget discipline in the Community; and European Union Document No. 7698/99, Inter-Institutional Agreement (IIA) between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 6th May 1999 on budgetary discipline and improvement of the budgetary procedure; and supports the Government in welcoming the renewal of the IIA as an important contribution to increasing the efficiency of the budgetary procedure and to maintaining budgetary discipline.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That paragraph 2(a) of Standing Order No. 54 (Consideration of estimates) shall not apply at the sitting on Monday 12th July, insofar as any Motion in the name of Margaret Beckett relating to the Eighth Report from the Committee on Standards and Privileges (HC 607) shall stand as first business.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

PETITIONS

Hunting with Dogs

8 pm

Mr. Mike Hancock: I have great pleasure in presenting a petition signed by 42,500 people from throughout the United Kingdom, including many from my constituency, on the issue of hunting with dogs. The petition is sponsored by the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the League Against Cruel Sports and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
The petition is yet another part of the jigsaw that is being put together that will, we hope, ultimately bring about the end of hunting in this country. Among the signatories are Anne Ruach from London and Dean and Jodi Hancock from Porchester in Hampshire. It gives me great pleasure to present the petition to the House.
The petition
Declares that we believe that hunting with dogs is cruel and unnecessary and has no place in modern Britain.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls on the Government to act on the overwhelming mandate it has received from Honourable Members and the public to end hunting by making a clear commitment by the year 2000 to legislate for its abolition.

To lie upon the Table.

Stroke Unit (Hull)

Mr. Alan Johnson: The petition of the members of the OK Stroke club and their supporters had 16,000 signatures when they set out from Hull to London and 16,083 by the time that they completed the journey. The petition
Declares that the lack of a specialist stroke unit in Hull and East Yorkshire means that there are avoidable deaths and avoidable disabilities in this area as a result of strokes. Most other parts of the country now have stroke units.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to do all in his power to ensure that a specialist stroke unit is provided for the people of Hull and East Yorkshire.

To lie upon the Table.

Rail Regulation (Wales)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I begin by referring to the transport powers that have been transferred to the National Assembly for Wales. I am wary of what Madam Speaker had to say on Wednesday, so I shall be careful about what I say. As I understand it, there is some limited rail investment through strategic development schemes and the Assembly can fund or regulate trunk roads, bus services and integrated transport packages. Local authorities have powers to fund local road construction and maintenance, bus services and some limited rail service development.
Integrated public transport policies are among today's big ideas, and rightly so, but there is a considerable problem in ensuring an integrated, sustainable transport policy for Wales—the glaring absence of any substantial powers under present legislation for the national authority to co-ordinate rail transport with other forms of public transport.
The White Paper on devolution suggested that the Assembly should be able to monitor the performance of the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising. It said:
The Assembly will also be able to invite evidence from various regulatory bodies including the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising. Government policy therefore appears to be that the National Assembly should be able to monitor the activities of these bodies and make its views known. However, these bodies will remain accountable to Parliament at Westminster.
One way forward for rail services in Wales may be through local authority funding. The Assembly has just taken over the transport powers of the Welsh Office, one of whose functions was to oversee passenger rail services in Wales. The departmental report for 1998 stated that more than £8 million was allocated to local authorities for improvements to the rail infrastructure between Cardiff and the valleys for the period 1996–97 to 1998–99. However, an all-Wales passenger transport authority would be preferable, as it would provide considerably more investment. The establishment of such a body would require primary legislation. At present, only metropolitan counties are passenger transport areas: only they, therefore, qualify for the establishment of passenger transport authorities or executives.
The financial implications of funding and its sources will be an issue. Other matters to be considered will be block grants, the transfer of current Opraf payments, investment funding for railways from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and so on. The addition of the railways to the National Assembly's expenditure portfolio would require a negotiated settlement estimated at between £80 million to £100 million, based on passenger miles within each franchise operating in Wales. That figure would, of course, be reduced in line with the subsidy profile.
Although there is a need to ensure that Wales is perceived as a country that is efficient and easily accessible to road-based inward investors and tourists, there is also a longer-term requirement for a sustainable transport policy that reduces both pollution and congestion. There is no doubt that Wales's road and rail network has been grossly underfunded for the past quarter of a century. To be frank, the picture is a bad one.
There is a lot of work to be done, and the Minister more than anyone will realise how important it is to put the right transport infrastructure in place. It is likely that the greening of the road building programme by the previous Government was a Treasury-led, cost-cutting exercise. The Welsh Office has published two documents that are appropriate starting points, but they must be backed by adequate funding if policies are to be turned into actions and are not to become mere platitudes.
The adequacy of the Welsh block grant—now transferred to the Assembly—will impact on road and rail expenditure, but at present no account is taken of any particular transport needs, nor of the current state of infrastructure in urban and rural Wales. Therefore, to overcome past underfunding, considerably higher amounts are required. The National Assembly has no control over expenditure in certain areas, such as major railway infrastructure. It faces the challenge of ensuring that Wales receives its fair share, and its relationship with the Strategic Rail Authority will be crucial.
The consultation process on the SRA began yesterday. I understand that the authority's main purpose will be to provide a clear strategic direction for rail transport in Britain. It will also promote—inside the Government and among the public—passenger and freight transport by rail, and it will foster a climate that encourages private investment in the railways.
The SRA will be the single body, accountable to the Secretary of State, responsible for strategic planning. It will co-ordinate and supervise the activities of the rail industry, as well as the disbursement of public funds. It will also have the clear aim of co-ordinating strategic objectives with the Government and other interested parties, which include passenger operators, consumers, freight operators and Railtrack. The SRA is also tasked to lead and promote a radical improvement in the integration of rail with other transport modes, and to maximise benefits to the rail user as far as possible, acting as an advocate of passengers and freight consumers.
The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions enumerated its concerns and aims in its recent response to the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. No one could argue with the Department's aims, but Wales is at a gross disadvantage. The National Assembly for Wales has a relative lack of power to oversee the strategic development of rail services in comparison with both the Scottish Parliament and the Greater London Authority. That is a raw deal for our railways. Creating an integrated transport policy will not be easy unless the powers are right.
The SRA will work closely with key organisations, passenger transport executives and co-signatories to several franchise agreements. The Scottish Executive will have power to instruct and guide the SRA on certain aspects of rail services that are wholly in Scotland. The GLA will be able to procure enhanced rail services from the SRA and propose changes to the pattern of services in London. The Welsh Assembly, by contrast, will be consulted only on passenger service specifications. None of those powers will compromise the SRA's duty to plan the operation and development of the rail network strategically across Great Britain.
The Welsh Assembly plainly has considerably weaker powers than the Scottish Parliament and the Greater London Authority, a distinction crucial to the economic development of Wales. A Cardiff office of the SRA could help properly to integrate rail services in Wales, which are currently poor. Back-Bench Members whinge, and Ministers get fed up of us, but I say nothing against the Minister by pointing out that rail services in Wales are probably at their lowest ebb.
Siting an office in Cardiff could help in the short term. Consultation is beginning on the proposed Railways Bill. Will the Minister convey the idea of a Cardiff office to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions? It would help our economy as well as developing a sustainable transport policy for Wales. I want a passenger transport authority for Wales—but for the time being, a Welsh SRA would be a useful step.
Last month, the Welsh Consumer Council reported on railways in "The European Connection: A report on transport connections to Europe". It found that railways in Wales were in a perilous state, never having been so poor. It observed that the system in Wales had become fragmented, failing to deliver any of the perceived benefits of privatisation. It opined that the quality of service to passengers had reached an all-time low.
Old trains are being transferred from routes in England to Wales. Recently, a relatively new set was taken off the north Wales coast railway to be replaced by a 1957 set. That is not good enough on one of the main lines in north Wales. The report also observes that the Assembly will control budget subsidies for roads, but will have no control over railways. The different administrative locations will make integration and co-operation difficult. Its firm conclusion is that the National Assembly should create a passenger transport executive so that—inter alia—the needs of passengers come first, and so that all forms of public transport are integrated and there is sufficient investment by rail operators in new rolling stock, staff and stations to provide an efficient, all-round service.
Three months ago, some high-powered Japanese entrepreneurs visited north Wales. They were intent on investing in the old county of Clywd in the eastern part of north Wales. Their arrival on train was delayed by two hours; shortly afterwards, they decided that investment was not a good idea. If that is not a graphic example of how the situation is hitting us economically, I do not know what is.
We are beginning the consultation period on the Railways Bill. I urge the hon. Lady to bring these matters to the attention of her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, so that the legitimate and deeply held concerns of the Welsh travelling public are met and so that, at the end of the day, Wales, too, will have a first-class, integrated public transport system with an excellent railway at its heart.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on securing this debate and providing an opportunity for the House to discuss railway regulation in Wales.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that one of the key objectives identified at the national rail summit in February was to improve the quality of service for


passengers while obtaining the best possible value for money for the taxpayer. One of the steps towards achieving that objective was the setting up, on 1 April, of the shadow Strategic Rail Authority, under Sir Alastair Morton, with Mike Grant as the new franchising director. The work of that body is well under way. Our new Railways Bill will formally establish the Strategic Rail Authority on a statutory basis, as well as aiding our regulation of railways in general—including those in Wales.
Our Bill will put right some of the more glaring faults of the previous Administration's privatisation. It will amend the tangled mess of railways legislation left by that Administration. They left our railways without a single voice, champion or focus. The railways were run as separate businesses, not a national network. What does our Railways Bill do?
As I said, the Bill establishes the Strategic Rail Authority. It sets out the mission statement for the SRA: to promote the use of the railway network for passengers and for freight; to secure the development of the railway network; and to contribute towards integrated transport. The Bill requires the SRA to produce a strategy or strategies to fulfil that mission. It transfers the duties of consumer protection to the SRA and a simplified closure procedure to the Secretary of State. It retains the rail regulator as an independent economic regulator, subject only to high-level guidance from Ministers on the Government's transport policy. It allows the SRA to ask the rail regulator to direct owners of railway facilities, such as trains or stations, to enhance them or provide new facilities. The Bill will enable the SRA to step in and operate trains if a franchise goes bankrupt, or if there are no acceptable private sector bids when a franchise is re-let.
The Bill allows the SRA, and the rail regulator, to impose more effective sanctions on those who break the terms of their franchise agreements or licences. In contrast to the position under the Railways Act 1993, contraventions that may have caused widespread inconvenience and loss, but which have been remedied by the time lengthy enforcement action is completed, could in future attract penalties. The Government have agreed in principle that the SRA will be able to retain income from penalties and reinvest it in the railways.
It is vital that our railways are run as a national network and because of that they must remain a reserved matter. However, that will be to the advantage of Wales—for which proper rail links are, I know, extremely important. Indeed, in his closing remarks, the hon. Gentleman demonstrated that vital importance in respect of inward investment.
We also know and respect the needs and concerns of the devolved Administration. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has agreed with the our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales that there will be Welsh representation on the Strategic Rail Authority, and that the authority will consult the Assembly about the exercise of its functions as they relate to Wales.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy suggested the establishment of a separate SRA for Wales, but, as I have said, what is overwhelmingly important is for us to return to the concept of a national integrated network. An SRA for Wales could not form a strategy for the whole network, and that would disadvantage Wales as well as the wider railway network.
It is essential for the SRA to be able to ensure that the railways are run as a national network, and to produce a strategy for the whole network. Most Welsh services start, end, or pass through England. Cutting them off—making them a separate entity—would lead to even more fragmentation. As I have said, proper, coherent links are vital to Wales.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the different position in Scotland. The position is different there because the network is largely self-contained. A Scottish policy will not have the impact on the rest of Great Britain that a Welsh policy might have; nor will it fragment Scottish services. The powers of Scottish Ministers will, however, be exercisable only within the Great Britain strategic framework.
Given the huge pressure on legislative time in the House of Commons, the introduction of the Railways Bill now is, we believe, an unequivocal demonstration of the resolve of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, and indeed of the Government as a whole, to fulfil our side of the bargain and improve our railway services. That will be of inordinate benefit to Wales, and to Great Britain as a whole. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is both a welcome and a fundamental step towards a better railway, which, in turn, will feed into the aims and objectives announced last year in our integrated transport White Paper.
An obvious factor that influences people' s choice of transport is performance. The main concern of passengers is that their trains run, and run to time. As the hon. Gentleman said, performance in many parts of Wales is, or has been, below par, notably the service recently provided by the Valley Lines—formerly known as Cardiff Railway—and Wales and West Passenger Trains. Long-term problems have also been experienced on Great Western Trains and the west coast main line.
The franchise agreements for all but InterCity operators include a punctuality incentive regime, under which companies are rewarded for improved performance or penalised for poor performance. It will come as no surprise to rail users in Wales, or indeed to the hon. Gentleman, to hear that between them Valley Lines, Wales and West Passenger Trains, Great Western and Central Trains paid more than £4 million under these regimes in the financial year up to 31 March 1999. That is a lamentable advertisement for rail services in Wales.
We have made it clear that poor performance by train operators will not be tolerated. Last November, an action plan was agreed with franchisees and Railtrack to secure short-term improvements in performance. Measures agreed included 800 new train drivers, 500 new vehicles, a joint "hit squad" to identify and tackle the worst 50 black spots, a national "trouble shooter" team to tackle punctuality problems, and a new national passenger survey to find out what passengers think about their rail services, and to help measure performance across the network.
As I have said, building on the success of the November meeting, the national rail summit took place in February to assess progress on the action plan, and to put in place solutions to tackle medium to long-term problems. We also launched the national passenger survey, and the start of a consultation with the rail industry and passenger representatives on a new standard measure of overall performance to reflect the experience


of passengers more accurately. The rail industry also accepted our challenge to improve punctuality over the next year, and committed itself to deliver real performance improvements that are measurable year on year.
When franchises are renegotiated, past performance will be one of the criteria on which operators are assessed and considered for future involvement in the industry. We have warned all train operators that those who fail to improve services will have no long-term future in our railways.
There are some significant new rail developments in Wales. The first of these is bilingual signing, and I understand that Wales and West Passenger Trains is in the process of installing bilingual customer information systems at all of the stations within Wales that it manages. I welcome that initiative as an example of a train operator responding to the wishes of passengers in Wales. The second is the north to south Wales fast train service, which was announced on 25 March. A feasibility study has been conducted and, although funding has yet to be finalised, the anticipated start date remains summer 2000. Thirdly, while I welcome the increase in frequency of Great Western trains between London Paddington and Bristol from June, I welcome even more its increasing the frequency of London to Cardiff trains by 2001.
We are committed to encouraging more people to travel by rail and to ensuring more investment in the rail network. That is why we have made available additional funding for a new rail passenger partnership scheme, launched on 24 May and aimed specifically at providing support for locally sponsored services that are not commercially viable. Applications for funding will be

assessed on planning criteria that take wider social benefits into account. Guidance has been issued to local authorities on how to bid for funds under that scheme.
Proposals for RPP support can be submitted by various bodies, including local authorities, passenger transport executives and authorities, and train operating companies, either as individuals or consortiums. Local authorities and others are encouraged to come forward with proposals. Formal bids will be appraised to ensure that they are consistent with Opraf's planning criteria and the franchising director's objectives, instructions and guidance. Bids will have to demonstrate the achievement of value for money in the delivery of the scheme. Copies of the RPP bidding guidance and planning criteria have already been sent to all local authorities.
I repeat, our perception is that it is vital that our railways are run as a national network, and that that will be to the advantage of Wales. We recognise the needs and concerns of the devolved Administrations and we are listening to them. The Government would strongly and wholeheartedly endorse the points made by the hon. Gentleman about the needs of railways as part of a properly integrated transport system. However, as I said, we believe that to split off the railways in Wales would make the situation in Wales even worse. Many of the problems that passengers in Wales suffer are, as we know, owed to the failure of previous Administrations adequately to invest in our railways. The Government are committed to change that, not only by our policies, but by our approach to regulation and through the additional funding that we have found for our railways. I assure the hon. Gentleman and all the people of Wales that Wales is central to our considerations and to the delivery of our programme.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Eight o'clock.